Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second Time and committed.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration of Lords amendments read. To be considered tomorrow.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (LIVERPOOL STREET STATION) BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the British Railways (Liverpool Street Station) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time.

Ordered,
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to seek their concurrence thereto.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY

Microelectronics

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many grants have been given under the microelectronics industry support programme in each year since its inception to firms in the Yorkshire and Humberside region; and what were the total amounts of money involved in each year.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): No support under the microelectronics industry support programme has been given to companies in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, but companies in the region have benefited from the schemes designed to encourage the development and use of new technologies.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the Minister agree that that type of answer demonstrates the Government's attitude to the Yorkshire and Humberside region? Is he aware that there is high unemployment in that area? Does he agree that new technology should be introduced to help young people who remain in Yorkshire and Humberside? Is he aware that although we do riot expect silicone valleys to be formed in Yorkshire, there is high unemployment in the Dearne Valley—about 23·5 per cent. in the Mexborough district area? When will the Government do something for the area?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands. The programme about which he asked relates specifically to microelectronics industry support. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is little industry in Yorkshire and Humberside that is associated with the manufacture of microelectronic components to which the programme is directed.
The Government are encouraging new technologies in Yorkshire and Humberside with about 120 grants and projects and other technology schemes. The hon. Gentleman is on o good point. We should publicise the schemes more. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do so in his region.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall have briefer questions. There will then be briefer replies.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend tell the House why the Government are likely to be more successful in backing winners in microeletronics than the previous Government were in backing winners in the motor industry?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend knows that the Government are strongly emphasising the encouragement of microtechnology in industry. We are likely to be more successful because industry is responding to the many measures that we are introducing.

Mr. Woolmer: Is the Minister aware that there are 300,000 unemployed people in Yorkshire and Humberside and that his Department has withdrawn assisted area status from many parts of the region? If the Government will not


help in that way, what will they do to replace the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been lost in textiles and engineering?

Mr. MacGregor: A later question relates to assisted area status. We have already debated the matter with regard to Yorkshire. With regard to new industries—especially those making use of microtechnologies—there has been a take-up in Yorkshire and Humberside of schemes that are still available. I hope that many more will be taken up.

British Leyland

Sir William van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has yet made a decision as to a successor to Sir Michael Edwardes as chairman of British Leyland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John Butcher): British Leyland announced on 31 August that Sir Austin Bide would become non-executive chairman of BL on 8 November. This appointment, which was made by the BL board, was approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as provided in the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the company.

Sir William van Straubenzee: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an encouraging appointment? Does he have it in mind to give any assistance to the work of Sir Michael's successor in terms of the operations of at least one European non-EEC country that is imposing very high tariffs in respect of its internal car production, which is resulting in unfair competition?

Mr. Butcher: I am sure that Sir Austin will need very little help in his executive capacity, as he already knows his way around the City and Whitehall, and he has been a member of the BL board for some time. My hon. Friend also hinted at a very controversial point. We view with great misgiving the imbalance in trading arrangements between Spain and Britain and we look forward to some sharp action, with the Commission taking into account the views expressed by my hon. Friend on previous public occasions.

Mr. Orme: Will the Minister give an assurance that the appointment of Sir Austin will not lead to the privatisation of BL? Is he aware that morale has been built up in BL and any move towards privatisation and breaking up the company, which is now based on a heavy input of taxpayers' money, would be disastrous for the company?

Mr. Butcher: BL consciously moved from having one executive chairman to having a part-time chairman and two group chief executives operating major separate business units. We regard that new structure as a means towards the earlier introduction of private capital and, in due course, denationalisation—or rather, the full introduction of majority shareholding from the private sector.

Mr. Major: The appointment is most welcome, but can my hon. Friend assure us that Sir Austin will show more tact and diplomacy than the Liberal canvassers who arrived at the BL Longbridge plant in Mercedes cars, and would he care to speculate on the sort of reception that they received?

Mr. Butcher: That is certainly a moot point. I believe that there is a clear duty upon those who advocate a "Buy British" policy and claim to represent British interests to pursue that line of thought in their own buying habits.

Mr. Golding: In considering this matter, will the Minister take account of the many thousands of unemployed people in the Birmingham, Northfield constituency who have experience in that industry and are desperately seeking work in an area devastated by the Government's economic policies?

Mr. Butcher: Having fought the Northfield constituency myself in 1974—[HON. MEMBERS: "What was the result?"] Unfortunately, Northfield fought back on that occasion—I, too, am aware of, and sympathise with, the feelings of Northfield workers, but if they benefit from Sir Austin's management capabilities as his Glaxo employees did, their job prospects will be enhanced.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question of BL will come up again later.

Information Technology Centres

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of establishing information technology centres.

The Minister for Industry and Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): We are making good progress towards the 100 centres that I announced at the end of last year; 59 centres have been approved and 27 of these are already in operation. I have been delighted with the response from potential sponsors, who see this as one of the most successful schemes that we have introduced for the post-school training of unemployed youngsters. I am pleased to tell the House that, in co-operation with the Manpower Services Commission, we have decided to extend the scheme to at least 150 centres.

Mr. Dormand: Does the Minister agree that there is a strong case for a rapid increase in the number of ITeCs in the Northern region? In particular, what has happened to the representations that I have been making for a long time for the establishment of such a centre at Peterlee in my constituency? Finally, what are the Government doing to link the work of ITeCs with permanent employment?

Mr. Baker: An application has been received from Peterlee and is proceeding favourably. There will be an ITeC there. With regard to the Northern region generally, I am glad to note that the centres approved so far have been outside the South-East of England as it is very important for ITeCs to make their contribution to the technological base referred to earlier in relation to the Yorkshire and Humberside region. I am also glad to say that for youngsters going through the training centres, most of whom left school without any 0-level or CSE qualification, the placement rate is very high. That is why I am anxious that an industrial company should sponsor each ITeC.

Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a general impression that the centres have been extremely successful? Can he assure us that there will be monitoring to allow the presentation of more precise information about the success of youngsters going through the centres and the benefits for their employers? Finally, is he satisfied with the extension of the centres in Scotland?

Mr. Baker: Scotland has a proportionately fair share of the centres and it will have a fair share of the extra 50 that I have announced today. As regards publicity for the centres, I welcome the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House, as this is one of the most effective initiatives in post-school training that we have undertaken.

Mr. John Garrett: Is the Minister aware that there are virtually no training materials available for ITeCs and that the Government's ITeC consultancy unit is overwhelmed with work and cannot produce the materials required? Does he agree that this is analogous with the micros in schools project, under which 25,000 primary schools are to have computers, but for which the Department of Education and Science will not make available a syllabus, teaching materials or teachers? What is the point of announcing these grand schemes if no support is provided when they are set up?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman exaggerates, and he is wrong. Under the micros in schools scheme we provide the hardware and we shall also provide some money for software support. I assure the House that training material for the ITeCs is in place and available. There are already more than 600 students at the centres and I expect that number to increase dramatically in the next few months.

Steel Industry

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a further statement on the position of the steel industry.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I refer my hon. Friend to the statement that I made on Friday.

Mr. Taylor: I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance on Friday that he will use all his powers to ensure that other EEC nations cut their capacity, as we have, and stop cheating on prices, but will he make it absolutely clear that in the absence of progress on both those matters he will not close his mind to the possibility of controls on imports from the Continent, which now amount to more than three-fifths of all our imports?

Mr. Jenkin: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that I shall indeed press the matters to which he refers with vigour and with the intention that we should produce results. The last part of his question is in a sense hypothetical, but I take careful note of his views.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House may as well know at the beginning that I propose to call three hon. Members from each side on this question, as it is the only question about steel today.

Mr. Barry Jones: Bearing in mind the huge closures and redundancies in past years and the horrible effects on the steel communities, will the Minister pledge that he will implement decisive measures to protect us from cheating imports? Will he also give realistic help on energy costs? Will he make it clear that the sacrifices of the steel communities in Britain, which are now languishing wretchedly with mass unemployment, will not have been in vain, in the light of the emergency now facing the industry?

Mr. Jenkin: I am very conscious of the substantial cutbacks that have been made in both the public and the

private sector of the steel industry. I must point out, however, that they were not made in any spirit of sacrifice to the dictates of the Community. They were necessary to restore viability to our own industry. It is also important to recognise that the level of steel imports as a proportion of our market is significantly lower than that in France or Germany. The figure for Britain is 28 per cent., while for France it is 43 per cent. and for Germany 35 per cent. We must also bear that in mind as we consider these issues in the months ahead.

Mr. Michael Brown: Notwithstanding the statistics that my right hon. Friend has given, does he accept that unless we ensure that these imports are stopped, all the sacrifices that have been made in the past two or three years, albeit very necessary ones in certain circumstances, will come to nothing? Does he realise that our steel industry will cease to exist unless, if necessary, we flout the Common Market regulations if the other EEC countries cannot agree to what my right hon. Friend will put to them?

Mr. Jenkin: With the greatest respect, I cannot agree that it would be right for the Government to stop imports into this country. There has been a traditional trade in steel, both imports and exports, over many years. We need to ensure that the stabilisation regime to which we have agreed with the rest of the Community is effective and operates fairly. That was the burden of my conversations in Brussels on Thursday with Vice-President Davignon and Commissioner Andriessen. We are not prepared to stand by and see our efforts to rationalise production frustrated because other countries are not prepared to do the same.

Miss Maynard: Will the Minister guarantee that another rationalisation in the EEC steel industry will not mean that Britain takes a much bigger knock than any other country?
When will the Government subsidise energy for the British steel industry so that it can compete with its competitors, particularly from the EEC? Will the Government not insist on balancing the books until Britain's steel industry is closed down entirely? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no further cuts in jobs or capacity?

Mr. Jenkin: I do not intend to preside over the closure of the British steel industry, and I hope that the hon. Lady will take that assurance as well intentioned.
I am aware that some disparities in energy costs still exist, despite the substantial Government help that has been given in two successive Budgets. There are still disparities between the costs met by the British steel industry and those overseas, to which we are giving attention.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend explain to all hon. Members that we cannot have it both ways? It is no good compaining that other EEC countries are cheating if, at the same time, we refuse to accept the rules laid down by the Davignon plan which ensure that there are fair shares. Is it not perfectly plain that whatever the short-term considerations might be—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Whose side is my hon. Friend on?

Sir Anthony Meyer: —the only long-term hope for preserving jobs in the steel industry is effective European


measures to ensure that the European steel industry has the maximum bargaining power in dealing with steel from outside?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend will agree that the stabilisation measures which have been put into practice are essential for the health of the European steel industry. At the same time, that does not remove from the British steel industry the obligation to be as efficient as possible to compete as effectively as possible within that regime for a share of the market.

Dr. John Cunningham: Is it not clear from the figures given to the Government by the British steel industry's private sector that import levels in special steels are commonly greater than 50 per cent. and in some areas are as high as 80 per cent.? Is it not also clear that those special steel manufacturers cannot survive that level of penetration, and that unless the Government relax their cash limits on the corporation the five remaining major plants will not be able to survive? Do not the workers in those plants deserve a guarantee from the Government now that their jobs will be secure?

Mr. Jenkin: At the June meeting of the Industry Ministers' Council I called for a report from the Commission on the position of special steels. I hope that we shall have that report in time for the meeting next month of the informal Council in Denmark. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I regard that as a matter of great importance.
I cannot, and the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to, stand here and give a categorical, cast-iron assurance that every job in every steelworks will be safe. We must tailor steel capacity to the anticipated demand. I have called for options on that from BSC' s chairman so that the Government can decide how best to approach the matter.

Manufacturing Industry

Sir David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what has been the output of British manufacturing industry during the first three quarters of 1982; and how it compares with the same period in 1980 and 1981, respectively.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Figures for the third quarter of 1982 are not yet available. In the first half of 1982 the index of manufacturing output averaged 89, compared with 99 in the first half of 1980 and 88 in the first half of 1981.

Sir David Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that while no one can be happy about those figures, the great issue is how to deal with them? While no Conservative Member wants a general reflation of the economy, we believe that there is a strong case for selective import controls on those who cheat.
Secondly, there is a case for advancing public sector investment in those areas where it will be made one day, such as replacing frigates for the Royal Navy.

Mr. Baker: I share my hon. Friend's views about the figures that I have announced. They show that the trough in manufacturing was reached in the first quarter of 1981, since when there has been only a modest recovery.
I re-emphasise what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box a week ago about import controls. As

consumer sales are so buoyant, if more people can be persuaded to buy goods made in Britain, it will have a ripple effect throughout the economy.
A group from the Machine Tools Trade Association is going to Japan this week with the Government's full support to negotiate a voluntary restriction agreement on the import of machine tools from Japan.

Mr. McNally: Is the Minister aware that the director of the Manchester chamber of commerce said only this week that there can be no hope of industrial recovery in our region under present Government policy? The chamber specifically asked for a programme of infrastructure investment and a revamping of regional policy. Is there any hope of a positive Government response to those specific requests?

Mr. Baker: Those matters were taken into account by the Government in the formulation of their policy. The essential precondition for Britain's industrial and economic recovery is the further reduction in the rate of inflation. If that can be reduced below 5 per cent. , which is the main thrust of our economic policy, we may be able to move to a period of proper and sustained growth.

Mr. Eastham: During the Government's lifetime, manufacturing output has declined by 18 per cent. Is it not true to say that national output is now the lowest since 1931?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that that is not unique to Britain. The drop in American manufacturing between the second quarter of 1981 and the second quarter of 1982 was 10 per cent. compared to 0·5 per cent. in Britain.

Mr. Dorrell: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest threats to British manufacturing output is the increasing tendency to see in import controls a way out of our problems? Does he further agree that it is useless to support the principle of free trade while opposing each practical example of its application?
Will my hon. Friend assure hon. Members that his Department will not present measures to the House that are a response to special pleading for just one more example of protection? Will he confirm that that amounts to a policy of picking losers?

Mr. Baker: We should all be aware that arguments for across-the-board import control are a seductive but wrong answer to Britain's economic problems. A protected economy will become a museum economy. However, we must ensure that free trade is also fair trade.

Mr. Orme: Do any of our main competitors practice free trade? Does Japan? What progress did the Prime Minister make with the Japanese with regard to their export of machine tools to the United Kingdom? What will the Government do about the number of Japanese cars that are coming into Britain at the moment? As the Secretary of State recently said at the motor show, our market is now saturated to 60 per cent.

Mr. Baker: The car arrangement with Japan is voluntary and the Japanese have stuck to it for the past two years in agreeing to restrict their import level to about 11 per cent. of the United Kingdom market. This week a group of business men from the Machine Tools Trade Association is in Japan as a result of the initiative that the Prime Minister took when she was there.

British Leyland

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many staff in his Department are engaged in monitoring the activities of British Leyland.

Mr. Butcher: Some eight officials in my Department, including accountants on secondment to the Department, are regularly involved for some of their time in monitoring the activities of BL.

Mr. Dalyell: What lessons has the Department of Industry learnt from the sale and subsequent cannibalisation of the tractor line at Bathgate, on which the Public Accounts Committee has reported?

Mr. Butcher: One of the major lessons that we have learnt concerns the vigour with which the hon. Gentleman pursues his constituents' interests. I thank him for having had the courtesy to see the permanent secretary at the Department and my hon. Friend the Minister on this subject. In due course we intend to respond to the Public Accounts Committee on several of the issues, including some of the questions that the hon. Gentleman has raised. However, I am sure that he will understand that it would be a discourtesy to the PAC if I were to trail or anticipate that response.

Mr. Stokes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be better to appoint an outstanding leader for the whole of British Leyland, in the way that General Montgomery was appointed to the Eighth Army 40 years ago, than to have officials in the Department spending many hours monitoring its activities?

Mr. Butcher: I know that my hon. Friend is an advocate of leading from the front. I have already assured the House that I believe that we have the right man and men for that job.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does the Minister deny press reports that parts of British Leyland, such as Jaguar and Unipart, are to be sold?

Mr. Butcher: We have yet to see BL's corporate plan, but at the current state of the art there are no formal proposals to sell parts of BL.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Commercial judgments must be paramount, but will my hon. Friend do everything possible to encourage the new management to buy British car components?

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. We all recall the days when British Leyland asked for large sums of taxpayers' money, partly on the basis that BL had an important role to play in succouring British component manufacturers. We do not say that BL should buy British merely for the sake of it, but, when making decisions on sourcing, it should remember much of its previous argument, which strengthened the Government's resolve to give it financial support.

Shipbuilding

Mr. Cowans: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he has had any recent discussions within the European Economic Community about policies for shipbuilding; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): No. There are no Commission

proposals before the Council regarding Community policy on shipbuilding aids. Intra-Community discussions on the successor to the fifth directive are currently taking place at official level.

Mr. Cowans: I thank the Minister for that illuminating answer. I am sure that the shipyard workers will be duly impressed. However, is it not abundantly clear that no policies will be forthcoming from the EEC to save the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry as we know it from virtual destruction? Is it not time that the Government took action and increased not only demand but the intervention fund amount? Is it not also time that they increased the levels at which the intervention fund can be used? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the terrible situation facing the shipbuilding industry on the Tyne, the Tees and the Wear? Does he intend to wait until the industry is destroyed before taking any action?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman's constituents may be more impressed by the fact that the Government have put more than £600 million into British Shipbuilders. Putting more money—via the Common Market—into an industry with gross over-capacity is not the right answer.

Mr. Colvin: What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the repair in British yards of Royal Fleet auxiliaries damaged in the Falklands campaign?

Mr. Lamont: I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend. For some time the policy has been for a considerable proportion of ship repair to be done in such yards, but I know that my hon. Friends are anxious that the private sector should also receive its share of such work.

Dr. John Cunningham: Is it true that British Shipbuilders on Wearside are being denied the opportunity offered by two overseas orders simply because the credit terms and financial arrangements are not forthcoming and the ECGD will not give support to British Shipbuilders for those orders? Should not the Government at least get such things right? The corporation has won the opportunity to build the ships but the Government will not allow British Shipbuilders the financial arrangements to enable it to get on with the job.

Mr. Lamont: It is all very well to say that, but the Government have made available a combination of favourable credit terms and production subsidies. The two together compare very favourably with the aid given to shipbuilding in many other countries.

Sir David Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that the chairman of British Shipbuilders has provided both me and the Department with information that shows that we subsidise our shipbuilders and owners to a lesser extent than any other EEC country? Why do we play according to the EEC rules when every other EEC country plays according to its own rules?

Mr. Lamont: I do not agree with my hon. Friend or with his conclusions. One must consider the credit and production aids together. Taken together, they show that we compare well with other countries. Indeed, that is before the £600 million of unremunerated public dividend capital that has been gut into British Shipbuilders is taken into account. Our aid compares well with that given by other countries. What we lack is productivity.

Small Businesses

Mr. Durant: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of the Government's special measures for small businesses.

Mr. MacGregor: We have introduced now nearly 100 measures in order to improve the working environment for small businesses, covering, among other things, taxation, finance, planning, premises, employment legislation, reduction in administrative burdens and advisory services. There continues to be a substantial take-up of many schemes.

Mr. Durant: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the many measures that the Government have introduced to help small businesses, but is he aware of the importance of small businesses to the Reading and Thames Valley area? Is he further aware of the importance of the help that should be forthcoming—although it is not always—from the major banks? Does he agree that local government should keep rates low in order to help small businesses?

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the importance of small businesses in my hon. Friend's area and in most local economies. However, substantial improvements have been made in recent years in the way in which the banks respond. The loan guarantee scheme has also helped small businesses. It is important that the range of advisory services for small businesses should be expanded so that business men can get the right advice. The small firms information service has expanded greatly recently and my hon. Friend may be interested to know that I am considering the opening of a small firms information service office in his area.

Mr. Spriggs: Is the Minster aware that two firms in St. Helens have recently closed, adding many men and women to the already high number of unemployed? Will he examine the situation in St. Helens and Merseyside carefully and see what he can do about granting special development area status to St. Helens?

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have considered the grant of assisted area status, but there need to be exceptional reasons for changing the decisions announced in July. I am conscious of the role that small firms can play in the St. Helens area, in view of the reduction in the number of those employed in the larger firms. The St. Helens' Enterprise Trust's achievement in finding new jobs is one of the big success stories, and I shall visit it shortly to see for myself.

Mr. Grylls: Will my hon. Friend discuss with his colleagues the possibility of greater discrimination in favour of small firms in the procurement policies of nationalised industries and of central and local goverment? I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that that would greatly help them.

Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of the importance of that area of the economy to small firms, but it is a difficult area in which to proceed. I know of my hon. Friend's interest in the subject. I have recently been to the United States of America to see what the Americans are doing. I shall continue to take a close interest in the matter. Indeed, the Department is reviewing it.

Mr. John Garrett: Does the Minister agree that the current unprecedented wave of collapse of small

businesses shows that the Government's cosmetic measures cannot make up for the basic lack of demand caused by the Government's economic policies? That is the crucial factor about small businesses. All these little measures to aid the setting up of small businesses are as nothing when compared with the lack of demand on which small businesses depend.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman forgets that we are living in an acute world-wide recession, as I discovered when I went to the United States. He will know that there is a tremendous amount of constructive buoyancy in small firms at present. Last year, 15,000 more firms started up in business than went out of existence. That is an indication of that buoyancy. If the hon. Gentleman examines the article today in the Financial Times, he will see a further very good example of how it is happening.

Small Industrial Units

Mr. Eggar: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he is satisfied with the availability of small industrial units.

Mr. MacGregor: A recent study carried out by my Department indicated that the annual rate of supply of small workshops has probably tripled since the introduction of the 100 per cent. industrial building allowance for small industrial premises in 1980. There remains a shortage generally of the very small units, under 1,250 sq. ft. and this allowance has been extended for another two years for those units. In assisted areas of England where this tax allowance has failed to stimulate the supply of small premises by private developers, the English Industrial Estates Coporation has been very active with a substantial building programme of small units.

Mr. Eggar: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply and for the large amount of work that he has done to ensure that we produce some small industrial units. Is he convinced that there is enough incentive for large companies which have large premises which they no longer wish to use to convert those premises to small units? Furthermore, is he satisfied that local authorities are giving enough priority to ensuring that small units are created when they are producing their development plans for planning purposes?

Mr. MacGregor: First, it is open to large firms to sell redundant premises and for developers to take advantage of the industrial building allowance to make the conversions. That is happening in a number of cases. Secondly, many local authorities are doing a considerable amount in this area, but they can help small firms by being constructive in the way in which they approach applications for planning permission.

Mr. Foster: Will the Minister take account of the fact that, for example, in South-West Durham, which does not attract special development status or even development area status now, the English Industrial Estates Corporation is not doing very much by way of providing small workshop space? Will he examine a scheme, which the local authorities may put to him, for granting them money to adapt existing redundant premises to create small workshop space?

Mr. MacGregor: The English Industrial Estates Corporation is doing a good deal. There is a heavy


emphasis now on small units in its programme. It has built a substantial number and has a substantial number planned for the future. It is interesting to note that a great deal of that is now being provided through private sector finance.
I have not yet seen the details of the individual scheme to which the hon. Gentleman refers, so I cannot comment until he lets me have them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is my hon. Friend not concerned about the cost of small advance factory units? For example, is he aware that such units provided under the auspices of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas in my constituency could be built for substantially less if they were built to lower but equally acceptable specifications than are currently demanded by his Department?

Mr. MacGregor: COSIRA operates within another Department, but I am in constant touch with the chairman of COSIRA and the Development Commission. If my hon. Friend will let me have details, I should be prepared to look into them with the chairman.

Mr. Park: Does the Minister acknowledge that Coventry, with its crumbling industrial situation, is worried, not about the availability, but about the cost of premises? The Minister is responsible for the small business area. When businesses are to be relocated and they are offered new units, generally speaking such premises are beyond the prices that small businesses can afford. The Minister should pay some attention to this matter. When small businesses are to be relocated, they should be given some assistance to go into the properties that are available.

Mr. MacGregor: That is certainly not the case with the many developments that I have seen. If the hon. Gentleman is thinking in particular about people who are starting up in business—often uncertain about their future and how business will go—licences are an appropriate way of providing help at that stage. I have seen developments in the West Midlands along those lines.

British Telecom

Mr. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when next he proposes to meet the leaders of the Post Office Engineers Union to discuss the privatisation of British Telecom.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I met the general secretary and other Post Office Engineering Union officials last Monday 18 October, and I offered further meetings as progress with the Telecommunications Bill develops.

Mr. Renton: I fully understand the concern of union leaders about redundancies, but has my right hon. Friend made the point to them that, after privatisation, there are likely to be more engineering jobs in the telecommunications industry? Is not the whole business of telecommunications, with its association with cable television, set on a path of expansion which will lead to more, not fewer, skilled jobs in competitive companies?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is borne out by the experience of the private sector companies in America. The other point, which I made as forcefully as I could to the union leaders, is that they are seeking partnerships in the development of cable with the

cable operating companies, but it does not generate confidence in BT and its work force when they engage in political strikes, such as the one we saw on Wednesday.

Mr. Orme: Does the Secretary of State agree that trade union members within the industry are attempting to defend their industry not only for their jobs but for the community as a whole? Has the right hon. Gentleman met the other trade unions involved—there are six major unions involved, three of which are not affiliated to the TUC—which are as strongly opposed to this proposed denationalisation as is the POEU? Does he agree that breaking up this company is not in the interests of the British taxpayer or the workers in the company?

Mr. Jenkin: I have always thought that the opposition to the Government's proposals is based on a misunderstanding. The right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has clearly misunderstood what we are going to do. There is no question of breaking up BT. It is proposed that BT, as an integral organisation, should offer shares to the public, so that the public can finance more of the investment in BT, rather than that such financing should fall on telephone subscribers as it does at the moment. That is not breaking up 3T. It is a single integral network, and it will be retained as such.

Mr. McQuarrie: In any further discussions that my right hon. Friend may have with the trade unions, will he give them an assurance that there will be a built-in safeguard regarding the services in rural areas, such as my own, in any privatisation of British Telecom?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend will know that I have already given a categoric undertaking to the House, and I repeated it to the unions, that the licence that we shall issue to BT when the Bill becomes law will place upon that organisation an obligation to maintain telecommunications in rural areas. Anyone who is entitled to a telephone now will not be refused access to the telephone network in future. If my hon. Friend would use his very considerable influence in his area to persuade the public that the unions' scares are lies, he will do great service to the Government.

Mr. Golding: Is the Secretary of State prepared to guarantee that all uneconomic kiosks that are now provided will remain after privatisation? Is he further prepared to guarantee that increases in charges in rural areas and small tow ns will be no greater after privatisation than those for business consumers? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a row going on in the United States Congress at present because of the fear of excessive increases in telephone charges for residential subscribers?

Mr. Jenkin: Like his right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), the hon. Gentleman continues to misunderstand what the Government plan to do. The hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about these matters. He knows that in the United States, as a result of the consent decree, the Bell Telephone Corporation was forced to hive of F its local networks into separate companies. As a result, the separate companies, which were subsidised by the main network, will have to increase their charges. I am not proposing any comparable hiving off here.—[Interruption.] The new office of telecommunications will have to ensure that pricing is fair between different categories of users.

Mr. Cowans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your advice? Is it in order for a right hon. or hon.


Gentleman to categorise people as liars, even if they are not Members of the House and cannot answer back? Is that a correct procedure?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Only when such people are not Members of the House is it in order.

Mr. Golding: Let me make it clear that I am not—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not going into the argument; we are discussing a point of order. The hon. Gentleman appeared to be pursuing an argument. If he has a point of order on which I can rule, I shall.

Mr. Golding: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not rise to the taunt of "liar" because I thought it to be false. You ruled, Mr. Speaker, that such a taunt was not out of order if it did not apply to a Member of the House. I am included in the category described because I am assistant secretary of the Post Office Engineering Union. If such a description should not be applied to a Member of the House, I ask that the remark be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: Order. When a general category is named, no hon. Member in particular is supposed to be in the mind of the right hon. or hon. Member who makes the remark.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Official Secrets Act (Prosecutions)

Mr. Renton: asked the Attorney-General how many prosecutions he has authorised under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act since May 1979.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): Since May 1979 I have authorised proceedings in two cases under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, against one defendant in each case. I have also authorised proceedings in one case, against two defendants, under section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1920.

Mr. Renton: Have any of the prosecutions related to matters currently being debated in the media, particularly in regard to security leaks from the Cheltenham communications centre?

The Attorney-General:: The story to which my hon. Friend refers is based on an article in an American newspaper, which names the person against whom I have authorised proceedings under section 1 of the 1911 Act. That case is sub judice. The House will understand that it would not be right to have further public discussion until the trial is completed.

Mr. Archer: Having persuaded the High Court that there would be a serious danger to national security if the book "A Matter of Trust" by Mr. Nigel West were published by Weidenfeld's, is it true, as reported in The Sunday Times yesterday, that, nevertheless, it is likely to be published in America? If so, does it mean that controls in Britain are too draconian, or should we conclude that the security secrets of America's allies are insufficiently protected in the United States?

The Attorney-General: That does not arise out of the question. I know only what I have read in the newspapers about the apparent intentions of the American publisher.

Mr. Beith: On 20 July the Prime Minister said that if any evidence emerged against other persons relating to the

Government's communications headquarters it would be referred to the DPP and that it would be for the Attorney-General to decide whether any charges under section 1 should be pursued. Is there any further evidence, and has the Attorney-General had to consider further charges relating to other persons?

The Attorney-General: I have had nothing in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman asks. The matter is totally unrelated to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Leadbitter: The Attorney-General has rightly said that one case under section 1 is sub judice in relation to the communications and intelligence centre at Cheltenham. However, arising from the reports, from history and from the assurances by the Prime Minister on 20 July, is the Attorney-General's Department motivated to carry out any investigations at all in connection with the centre beyond that of the sub judice matter?

The Attorney-General: Any question of investigations into the measures for security in any Government premises is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Director of Public Prosecutions

Mr. Adley: asked the Attorney-General on how many occasions in the last three months he has referred matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions directly as a result of specific information passed to him by hon. Members; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: I understand my hon. Friend's question to refer to those matters that I have brought to the Director's attention into which he was not already making inquiries or of which he was not already aware. In three instances during the last three months have I referred such matters to the Director. I do not propose to make a statement.

Mr. Adley: Recalling the campaign of denigration against the Metropolitan Police launched by the Liberal Party last July, which is referred to by Sir David McNee in The Guardian today as
the unsubstantiated allegations of anonymous criminals against police officers Mr. Steel refused to name
were any of the three cases which he has named referred to him by members of the Liberal Party? If so, will my right hon. and learned Friend say something further? If not, does he agree that the campaign was deplorable and should be condemned?

The Attorney-General: No cases or evidence have been referred to me for some months by any Member of of the Liberal Party in respect of the Countryman investigation. Indeed, the second paragraph of the letter from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to the Leader of the Liberal Party, which is in the Library, states:
You agreed at our meeting that no new information requiring investigation was in your possession.

Operation Countryman

Mr. Dubs: asked the Attorney-General how many matters, arising from the Operation Countryman investigation, are still before the Director of Public Prosecutions for decision.

The Attorney-General: None.

Mr. Dubs: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is much public disquiet about the failure—I use that word advisedly—of Operation Countryman? Is he aware that that public concern will not be stilled by denials from retired police officers, no matter how eminent? Does he further agree that he and the Home Secretary have a responsibility to carry out a full investigation into the whole sorry business?

The Attorney-General: The problem was that the original Countryman investigation was carried away on a wave of optimism. Figures as high as 80 potential cases were given at one time, but when the evidence in respect of those cases was looked at with care, many times it was found to be hearsay upon hearsay. Often the evidence was from people with serious convictions who may have had a score to settle against particular police officers or against the police force in general.
When the complaints of obstruction came to light, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, the then chief constable in charge of the investigation issued a statement denying that there had been any obstruction. Shortly after that, I had a long meeting with him and Sir Peter Matthews, who was to take over from him. We went through everything that was there, and in the end the sort of obstruction that I could identify in the complaints was, for example, that the Director had not agreed to a general immunity against anybody that we wanted to call as a witness, even though that might be in a serious armed robbery case, such as the Williams and Glyn's bank case. For years the Director has refused to give such blanket immunities. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will agree that that is proper.
There were one or two complaints about the Director's representative working in Surrey with the Countryman force. When one looked into them, they were found not to be cases of obstruction of any kind. The meeting ended with a resolve on all sides that the inquiry should go forward with renewed vigour.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: In view of the criticisms made by Sir David McNee in his memoirs of the way in which the Operation Countryman team worked and his allegations that the inquiry went much wider than was necessary, will the Attorney-General tell the House how closely the DPP kept in touch with and advised those carrying out the investigations?

The Attorney-General: The Director of Public Prosecutions did everything that he could to keep closely in touch, but, unfortunately, from time to time Countryman officers did things that could not be justified. Without telling the Director that they had done so they arrested a senior officer on a charge that had nothing to do with Countryman. He did not learn about it for some weeks. There was found to be no evidence when the facts were analysed, and the officer had to be discharged.
In another case the Countryman officers sought to support a bail application in a Surrey case involving, a villain in Surrey when the Surrey police were opposing bail. Mr. Hambleton admitted to me at the meeting that both of those actions were wrong. Those were the sorts of problems that were occurring. Tight control can be exercised by the Director only if somebody reacts to that tight control when it is sought to be imposed.
Later—

Mr. Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that we lost two minutes of Question Time because points of order were raised. While it was entirely appropriate for you to take them if you wished, on many occasions you have reminded the House that we should wait until the end of Question Time. Would it be desirable to stress that again?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. If hon. Members raise points of order during Question Time, I must show the House that it suffers, and therefore bring Questions to an end at exactly 3.30.

De Lorean Motor Company

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (By Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the affairs of the De Lorean Motor Company.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): As I announced on 19 October, as no investor had come forward to take over De Lorean Motor Company Ltd., the receivers were proceeding to a final rundown of the company's Dunmurry plant. I greatly regret the loss of many jobs to Northern Ireland. I understand that in the last few days a number of interests in both the United Kingdom and the United States of America have been in touch with the joint receivers, to explore the possibilities either of purchasing the stock of cars held in Belfast or of acquiring the entire business as a going concern. No detailed proposals have yet been referred by the receivers to the Government. Any such proposals would be considered on their merits.

Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman, who has already done so much damage in the Province by his obdurate refusal to take any notice of sound advice and accurate information, give an assurance that, in addition to any inquiries which may be set on foot by Committees of the House, the Government as such will inquire into the eventual destination of the sums of public money which have come into the hands of the company and into any relationship, financial or otherwise, between that company and its chairman and the IRA?

Mr. Prior: As soon as the receivers were appointed they were asked to carry out such an investigation into the affairs of the company. I am awaiting their report. They have been trying to resurrect the company in the meanwhile. I have no evidence about the accusations of a connection between the chairman of the company and the IRA. If anyone has evidence of a correct kind—I emphasise the word "correct"—perhaps he will come forward with it.

Mr. Clive Soley: While dealing with a difficult matter, will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the work force on its significant achievements over the years at the De Lorean plant? Let no one underestimate its achievements because of one man's problems. In 18 months, in an area of mass unemployment, the work force turned a green field site into a factory producing modern cars. No one should lose sight of that fact. Nor should the House lose sight of the importance of supporting the work force in Northern Ireland in an area where the unemployment rate is 35 per cent.

Mr. Prior>: Yes, Sir. It was a remarkable feat to have an untrained work force and turn it into a trained work force producing cars within three years of the factory being started. It reflects enormous credit upon the work force, and it is with deep regret that I have to say that we have not been able to find anyone to keep the plant going.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call two hon. Members from either side, and then to move on to the guillotine business.

Sir Philip Goodhart: Much wrong advice has been given, many wrong decisions have been taken and much public money has been wasted. Surely we should have a full public inquiry.

Mr. Prior: The Public Accounts Committee is in any case to investigate what has happened. It is an extremely sorry story. The receiver's report will shortly be made available to the Government. The Cooper Lybrand report has been available, and at times there have been police investigations. There is a great deal of information available, and no doubt there is more to come.

Mr. Tom McNally: Is the Secretary of State aware that the statement by the spokesman for the official Opposition is almost identical to the unanimous report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry after it visited Northern Ireland this year? There is a lot of support in the House for the right hon. Gentleman's efforts to get Japanese, American, West German, European and British investment into Northern Ireland, and this one unhappy episode should not be allowed to deflect him from the effort of getting jobs to the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I agree that nothing should deflect us from trying to get jobs for the people of Northern Ireland. Nor should some exaggerated reports of the state of Northern Ireland be allowed to stop jobs from going there.

Mr. James Kilfedder: In view of the heartbreaking number of unemployed people in Northern Ireland, will the Government, despite their experience with De Lorean over the past few years, do all in their power to get a buyer to take over this company, to provide some hope for the people?

Mr. Prior: It is important for the people in Northern Ireland, let alone the House, to make certain that projects are proceeded with only when they are seen to be properly viable and there is a chance of success, otherwise Northern Ireland and the House and everything else that we try to do come into disrepute, as in this case.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Should the Government not learn the simple lesson that when public money is spent on industry the best way to ensure public accountability is through public ownership? In view of the millions of pounds of taxpayers' money that the Government have spent in trying to bail out the De Lorean company, what guarantee have we that the Government will not spend another £3 million of taxpayers' money to bail De Lorean out of gaol?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. I do not believe that many of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends will agree with his remarks. He should be a little careful, because it was his Government who started the project.

Employment Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [20 April] be supplemented as follows:
Lords Amendments
1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 20 April, each part of those proceedings shall, if not prevously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.


TABLE


Proceedings


Lords Amendments
Time for Conclusion


1
7.00 pm


2 to 14
8.00 pm


15 to 22
9.15 pm


23 to 41
10.00 pm


2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, that this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, that this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.
4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—
(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Questions already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then—

(i) put forthwith the Questions on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item in the Lords Message;

(ii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental
5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.
(3) A committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.
(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.— [Interruption.]
Hon. Members should not chime in there. I should be perfectly content if the matter were to go through on the nod. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks), the Opposition Chief Whip, and his colleagues, like many of us on the Conservative Benches, did not realise that Mr. Speaker was putting the Question. I know that the Official Opposition wish to debate the motion, and I am happy to do so. I hope that that will be for the convenience of the House.
We have already spent more than 150 hours discussing the Bill, and the motion provides a further five and a half hours in which to consider the amendments that have been made to the Bill in another place. It may help, therefore, if I remind the House that the version of the Bill before us is the one which was ordered to be printed on 21 May this year. I hope that it wall avoid any other procedural muddles if we all use the same version in our discussions.
The purpose of the motion is twofold—first, to ensure that there is no further delay in the Bill's reaching the statute book, and secondly, to ensure that in the time still. available we give proper consideration to the main issues—employee involvement, the closed shop, requirements about trade union recognition and trade union immunities—which are covered by the amendments made in another place.
I say at once that the Government would have preferred not to have a timetable motion at this stage. It is necessary for one reason only—the clear determination of the Opposition to frustrate the passage of the Bill with every means at their disposal and thereby to withhold for as long as possible from employees and employers the important new protection that the Bill contains. At no stage during the Bill's progress through this House has the Official Opposition shown any inclination to subject its provisions to serious scrutiny. That was not true of the minority parties. I direct that remark to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bradley) who represents the SDP today, as he did in Committee. I should add that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) was always robust in his comments and was seldom absent from the Committee. I know that he is absent today only because of pressing business which prevents him from being here.
The Opposition's attitude was clear from the moment when the Bill started its Committee stage last February, when they spent 37 hours trying to remove clause 1. There was further evidence of that attitude in April when, after the Government had been forced to introduce a timetable motion, the Opposition failed to use all the time that was available under that motion to discuss the Bill's remaining provisions. They merely wished to extend the period to delay the whole process, not to discuss the Bill. That is abundantly clear again today from the Opposition's decision, which I fully understand, to spend an hour in ritual denunciation of the timetable motion, instead of using the time to debate the amendments.
Of course, it suits the Opposition's purpose to stick to generalities. If they can avoid discussing the detail of the Bill it is easier for them to exaggerate and distort its purpose and effects and to perpetuate the myth that it is an attack on ordinary working people. In truth, the Bill is nothing of this sort. It does not undermine responsible trade unionism. It does not prevent those who wish to do so from joining a trade union. It does not prevent trade union officials from organising industrial action by their members in pursuit of improvements in their terms and conditions of work or in job security.
As I have said before, the Bill is essentially a modest and moderate one. Its aim is to protect both employers and employees—and, indeed, the public at large—against the abuses and excesses of trade union power, the tyranny of the closed shop, industrial action that hits at those who cannot defend themselves, and bullying and coercion which seem, from recent events, to play an increasing part in trade union activities.
When we brought the Bill before the House in January, the need was clear. The sacking of non-union employees by Walsall and Sandwell councils in open defiance of the law, the insiduous spread of the closed shop through the back door of union labour only clauses in contracts—

Mr. Dennis Canavan: What? Did the right hon. Gentleman say "insiduous"?

Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps when the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) gets time he will make a speech in his own inimitable accent.
The events that I have mentioned and the continuing reluctance of trade unions to put their own house in order, as they shelter behind their wall of immunities, were evidence enough, but if anyone doubted the need for the Bill then, they surely no longer do so today. In recent months, some trade unions have plumbed new depths in the treatment of their members. A month ago, the TUC called on all member unions to support the so-called day of action. What form did the support take in some trade unions? How did they demonstrate sympathy and solidarity? It was certainly not by consulting their members or by asking for support, but by giving them the choice of going on strike or losing their union cards and thus, in a closed shop, their jobs.
Since that so-called day of action, I have received more than 50 letters from trade unionists—some on behalf of substantial groups of their fellow workers. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will be familiar with the orange folders which denote letters from Members of Parliament, but in addition, here are wads of letters, one after another, from trade unionists, protesting about the fact that they were

being threatened with the loss of their jobs unless they went on strike. I should be happy to spend the whole day reading out the letters, because they would substantiate the need for us to proceed swiftly with the Bill.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Cumbria one such trade unionist wrote a letter like that to a newspaper, and it was found to be utterly fraudulent and inaccurate?

Mr. Tebbit: I cannot imagine that the hon. Gentleman would expect that to undermine the Bill. I have some letters, for example, written on the notepaper of the National Graphical Association, and I doubt whether they are fraudulent. I have received plenty from Members of Parliament, some from my own constituents, and some from people whom I know personally. I have one from the deputy mayor of my own borough, for example, who is being threatened.

Sir Frederick Burden: Surely, my right hon. Friend will remember receiving a letter from me, when all the members of a firm in my constituency were threatened with the withdrawal of the union card if they did not come out. I sent the letter to the papers, and they questioned the trade union secretary involved, who admitted that it had been done.

Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. Indeed, I am sure that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) does not defend those actions. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) will say that no pressure was put on any trade unionists to come out on strike, and that under no circumstances will any union cards be withdrawn or anyone lose their job over it, unless he does, it makes what the hon. Member for Workington says look cheap, unsubstantiated and difficult to believe.
In some cases union branches and chapels actually voted not to strike, but that meant nothing to the bosses. One letter from a trade union says it all. The letter is dated 20 September—two days before the "day of action"—and was sent by the Oxford and Berkshire branch of the NGA to chapels which had voted not to strike on 22 September. It begins disarmingly "Dear colleague", but goes on:
We understand that you may have decided not to stay away from work on Wednesday September 22nd in support of the National Health Service Workers' Day of Action".
Then it says:
We must inform you that it is not open to chapels or members to 'vote' to ignore National Council instructions".
How does that fit the hon. Gentleman's theories? But that was not all. The letter continues:
To ignore a binding decision of the National Council is to lay yourself open to disciplinary action under Association rule 41".
The NGA members—and there were a lot of them among my 50 correspondents so far—told me that that rule says that anyone disobeying union instructions will be fined up to £500 or expelled. That is the penalty for going to work. That is the penalty for those who voted in their meetings to go to work, and were then told that they could not go to work. Where is the pretence of democracy? That is not even a parody of the car park meeting that we have witnessed on other occasions; it is simply the crushing of dissent by the crudest of threats. The case has been well put by one who knows more about the corruption and viciousness of the trade union bullies than any of us here today. He said:


For more years than I care to remember the extreme left have been intriguing, lying and manipulating the votes of trade unions …
They have prolonged meetings until they have a majority that can usually be counted on the fingers of one hand. They scandalise and intimidate the ordinary decent people who once made up the bulk of the union and Labour party activists.
At secret meetings, they hand out lists of people to be supported in elections and are able to ensure that they get that support by taking advantage of the poor attendance at the official local branch meetings where they have little difficulty in securing the acceptance of both their nominees and their policies.
After all, three or four people are often the majority in branches with a membership of 500 or a thousand who prefer to watch television rather than engage in bitter and often personalised debates about politics.
They then hail these accomplishments as a decision of the members—not the three or four who attended the meeting, but the hundreds who did not.
They conceal their real aims behind slogans such as 'the members have been sold down the river', or 'for greater rank and file control' or 'broad left candidate'.
Their real aim is to swing the movement behind revolutionary policies which, if they were out in the open, would get little support.
Even where they fail, they leave a trail of recrimination and resentment that reflects on the union and its leaders: portraying them as incompetent bunglers, in the pockets of the employers.
That is not my description, nor are they the words of someone who is hostile to the trade unions. They are the words of the present chairman of the general council of the TUC, writing in a Sunday newspaper on 10 October this year. I agree with every word that he says. How many Opposition Members would stand up and have the courage to say the same thing? How many of them even believe that, and how many of them are mere puppies running yapping at the heels of the militants?

Mr. Ron Leighton: rose—

Mr. Tebbit: One hon. Gentleman is going to support the chairman of the general council of the TUC.

Mr. Leighton: Does the Secretary of State know what the fine in the NGA rule book is at the moment? He quoted a figure of £500. I understand that that is the proposed figure for next year. Is he aware that the current fine is £75, that there is no chance of anyone being fined more than £75 and that no one has been fined? In view of those facts, will the Secretary of State withdraw his statement about people being threatened with a fine of £500?

Mr. Tebbit: No, Sir. I will not withdraw my statement. I know that the maximum fine is only £75. I know that the £500 fine will not come into effect until next year. I know that the NGA needs it to dragoon its members into line. What I quoted was what the branch was telling its members. It was not telling the truth about the fines in its own union. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman has made the position worse and not better for the scurrilous people whom he seeks to defend.
Therefore, there is still not one Opposition Member who will come to the rescue of the chairman of the general council of the TUC with a word of support. However, I will give him support. I back him in everything that he said in the extract that I read to the House.
The Bill will bring greater protection for workers who want simply to work rather than to strike. Some people do not understand the extent of protection that they have. That will come out in matters that we shall deal with in the Bill. It is true that British Telecommunications staff who did not take part in the events of 20 October were told clearly and

firmly by their management that the job security agreement for Post Office Engineering Union represented grades does not differentiate between union and non-union members and is not relevant in that context. The Post Office makes it clear that it will not dismiss, even under union pressure, those who did not take part in the strike. I am grateful for the chance to put that right.
Conservative Members will never accept the vision of society in which every person is dragooned into unions, whether he likes it or not, and in which everyone has to march in the same direction and at the beck and call of what Sid Weighell described as squawking Left-wing mobs.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Tebbit: On cue, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister confirm that he is part of a Government who believe in collective security and that if any Ministers step out of line on this Bill, the Transport Bill or any other Bill of major importance, they will, as a result of the collective security in the Cabinet, lose not £75, or £500, but their jobs?

Mr. Tebbit: As no Bill is brought forward without the unanimous agreement of the Cabinet and Ministers, the hon. Gentleman's point is sillier than usual.
We believe that individuals should be able to decide for themselves whether they wish to join a trade union or take part in a strike. We believe that the community must be protected against the excesses of trade union power, so brilliantly described by Frank Chapple. That is what the Bill is all about. That is why it should be passed without further delay so that in the words of Lord Denning:
The new Employment Bill will be passed this session. It will be the greatest reform in trades union law over the last 80 years.

Mr. Eric G. Varley: The Opposition oppose the supplementary guillotine motion and will vote against it. We are grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for showing flexibility in allowing the debate to take place.
It is difficult to know what to say about the Secretary of State's speech, because he did not address his remarks to why it was necessary to guillotine the discussion on the Lords amendments. He spent most of his time castigating trade unionists for supporting National Health Service workers. If he were fulfilling his role as Secretary of State for Employment, with all the other responsibilies that he is supposed to have, such as conciliation, he would urge his right hon. and hon. Friends, if they were so confident about their case, to let the dispute go to arbitration or at least ask the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to mediate meaningfully. However, he has not done that. He knows that the Government do not have much of a case. That is why he wants to divert people's attention.
I am sure that one of these days Mr. Sid Weighell, Mr. Frank Chapple and others will be able to speak to the Secretary of State direct. The right hon. Gentleman prayed in aid Mr. Frank Chapple. I recall that during that great demonstration on 22 September Mr. Frank Chapple was on the platform in Hyde Park supporting the NHS workers and saying some rough things about the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Government. Therefore, it is no good the Secretary of State trying to divert people's attention by saying the things that he has said.

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman always says that I am not sufficiently conciliatory. Has he not noticed that I have said nice things about the chairman of the general council of the TUC?

Mr. Varley: The chairman of the general council of the TUC knows that this is the worst Government that trade unions have experienced. He is prepared to say that on any occasion when he is asked to do so.
Unlike the Secretary of State I want to talk about the Bill and its amendments. At every stage of the Bill the Secretary of State and his colleagues have had so little confidence in their case that they have wanted to restrict the time for debate. There is no urgent need for this measure. On the contrary, when it reaches the statute book—as no doubt it will—it will bring about not an improvement but a deterioration in industrial relations. Even this Government and this Secretary of State will rue the day when the legislation is enacted. We know that the Secretary of State has doubts about the legislation, because some provisions will not be activated until some months ahead. The only provision that will be activated quickly is clause 1, which the Secretary of State wishes to use to compensate free riders.

Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. There will be no undue delay in activating the provisions of the Bill. The provision for balloting on the closed shop will be delayed to allow proper time to prepare the ballots. The remainder of the Bill will be brought into effect as soon as it is reasonably expedient and possible.

Mr. Varley: Does the Secretary of State wish to activate the ballots on closed shops before the next general election, assuming that it will not take place until the last humiliating moment in May 1984?

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It will be humiliating for the Labour Party.

Mr. Tebbit: I do not know when the general election will be. I have told the right hon. Gentleman that I shall give either one or two years' grace to allow trade unions to prepare for the ballot. I shall announce my decision on that when Royal Assent is given to the Bill. The provisions that give greater protection to trade unionists will be brought into effect as soon as it is reasonably expedient to do so.

Mr. Varley: I take it from his reply that the Secretary of State will not activate that part of the Bill for two years.
The Labour Party believed that the purpose of today's debate was to enable the House to discuss the Lords amendments in the five hours devoted to the Bill. However, the time is inadequate. It is sometimes claimed that the House of Lords is a revising chamber. Some members of the other place suggest that it improves legislation that is sent to it. With the exception of amendment No. 1, the Bill returns to the House more hostile to the trade union movement than when it left us in June. It carries the Government's hostility and prejudice to the trade union movement even further.
In the House of Lords, if it seemed as though the trade unions were not being restricted enough, the screw was tightened further. Let there be no doubt that the Government are determined, at every opportunity, to weaken the trade union movement. The Bill increases the power to sack trade unionists selectively if they strike. As

a result of some Lords amendments, the Bill now protects the employer who does not consult the trade unions to which his workers belong. The Government seem ready to set aside the legislative requirements on consultation that are contained in almost all of the major statutes that have brought industries into public ownership. Elected councils and local authorities cannot specify that a firm to be awarded a contract must consult trade unionists.
Members of the Liberal Party may say that they initiated Lords amendment No. 1, which is entitled "Employee involvement" although on the copy of the Bill that went through the Lords the title was "Employee participation". There is a difference between the two phrases, which I hope the Secretary of State or his colleague can explain. That amendment, which will form a new clause, is all very well as far as it goes, but it does not go very far. To give it the title "Employee participation" is nonsense. The Labour Party wishes to strengthen the clause and that is why we have tabled amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) will advance arguments to expose the inadequacy of the amendment.
If we are to take the Government seriously in their assertion that they are in favour of employee participation, it is nonsense to restrict the debate to two hours. The House should not support the supplementary guillotine motion, because of what the Secretary of State has said today and on other occasions. Anyone who has read the House of Lords debate on the Bill will see that Conservative supporters in the other place wish to have further legislation to restrict trade unionism. The Secretary of State is only too eager to oblige. We know that he is preparing what he chooses to call a discussion document. That is another name for a Tebbit diktat.
We are told that the Employment Act 1980 did not go far enough, that this Bill is part of the Secretary of State's step-by-step approach and that he will not be satisfied until effective trade unionism is eliminated. Before we pass the guillotine motion, the Secretary of State—or one of his colleagues—must tell us what further legislative attack he is planning on British trade unions. The Secretary of State does not give a fig for trade unions. He insults their elected leaders almost every time he opens his mouth. He does not consult them as did the old-style Conservative Ministers of Labour. He attacks previous Governments, as at the Tory Party conference, and attacks his Conservative predecessors, such as Sir Walter Monckton, lain Macleod and the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). The Secretary of State has discovered that it is best to have a two-pronged and simultaneous offensive against the millions of men and women in our trade unions. The first approach is step-by-step legislation to reduce their effectiveness, and the second, and perhaps more effective, approach is to pursue industrial and economic policies that create mass unemployment. On the latter, the Secretary of State is an unqualified success.
We have been told many times by Tories that the Bill is about individual rights, which is why it must be guillotined and why we can spend only five hours on it today. However, 4 million individuals make up the ever-lengthening dole queues that the Government accept without a murmur.
The Labour Party protests about the further restrictions on the debate. The Tory philosophy embodied in the Bill and in the amendments, which we have inadequate time to debate, is that if we eliminate trade unions and create


further unemployment the market will work even better. The trade unions have not created 3·3 million registered unemployed, nor have they brought about the lowest number of apprentices in modern times. The trade unions have not brought about the unprecedented fall in manufacturing output, nor have they brought about record bankruptcies and liquidations. The trade unions did not remove all exchange controls so that capital now flows across the exchanges and out of Britain. Nor did the trade unions cause the other horrors that have afflicted Britain during the past three and a half years.
We oppose the guillotine motion. Five hours in which to debate the amendments is inadequate, and that is why we shall vote against the motion.

Mr. Tim Renton: I shall detain the House for only a minute or two because I know how anxious hon. Members are to get on with the main debate. However, I was prompted to rise by one remark of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). He said that there was no great urgency to get the Bill on to the statute book. Recent events belie that statement.
For example, we heard from the Under-Secretary, in answer to a question of mine last Monday, that his Department had already—by last Monday—received about 50 separate complaints in writing from both individuals and groups of employees outside the Health Service. They had been compelled to take industrial action on the day of disruption, 22 September, simply by threats from their trade unions that disciplinary action, including expulsion, would be taken against anyone refusing to strike. In none of those cases were the employees involved allowed by their union to vote on whether to take industrial action.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Gentlemen to come to the House and make statements that may well not be based on truth when they have the option, before the debate, to go out and establish the truth? Is it not also—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must allow hon. Members to make the speeches that they desire to make. As long as they are in order I can make no objection.

Mr. Renton: I am quoting from a parliamentary answer to me from the Under-Secretary of State for Employment. The answer was given a week ago, and I doubt whether it is incorrect in detail, except that I suspect that there are more complaints by now because another week has passed.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What proof?

Mr. Renton: It is surely intolerable that in this day and age individuals are compelled by their unions to take industrial action without being balloted, and under threat of losing their union card if they do not agree.
We have already heard of this sort of behaviour in the Health Service dispute. I wonder how many more cases we shall hear of in relation to the 24-hour steel disruption last Friday? What has that strike done for the British steel industry, which is in a parlous state? We know that the steel industry throughout the world is in trouble. We have heard the chairman of British Steel saying, when the steel industry unions went on strike on Friday, that the unions seem to think that they are living in a closed world that has

nothing to do with their customers. Going on strike will not bring another order for British Steel or another job, but will once again convince British customers that, if that is what happens in BSC, the customers should "second source"—buy more supplies from the Continent or from other sources in the world, which is what they did in the 13-week strike two years ago.
What member of the steel unions was balloted to find out whether he wanted to 'take part in this damaging, 24-hour strike? Not one was balloted. The only contrary' instance of which I know is that of the staff association, a branch of Frank Chapple's union—the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union. As I have already said in an early-day motion signed by 60 hon. Members, that union alone had the courage to tell its members not to go on strike on Friday because it knew what damage the strike would do to the British steel industry.
Thus, the sooner that we get the Bill on to the statute book the better. At least it gives the protection to the employee that if he is judged by an industrial tribunal to have been unreasonably expelled from his union, it will, according to the Act, be unfair to dismiss him for not being a member of a trade union that operates a closed shop in an industry or firm. He also has much greater protection if he loses his union card as a result of not joining in the industrial action.

Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Renton: I shall not give way. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to make his own speech.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House should welcome the Bill. Let us get it on to the statute book as soon as possible and let us have a third Employment Bill in the next Session to give trade unionists a chance to demand secret ballots in their unions for the election of national officials, and before a national strike. Then we shall be on the course of returning control of trade unions to their members. That is what we want to achieve. We want not to reduce the power of trade unions, but to make them responsible to their members.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the House, in case hon. Members are wondering what has happened to me, that I am aware that we are not talking about the timetable motion and whether this is the right time to have it, but are having Second Reading speeches. None the less, the debate will finish at 4.38 pm.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I have a point to make specifically on the guillotine motion, but I shall precede it by commenting on three points that have arisen. As those observations were in order, I presume that my comments on them will also be in order.
I was shocked by the Secretary of State's speech. In any Government, one of the most important jobs is that of Secretary of State for Employment, because it is his job to try to weld both sides of industry together in a joint effort to get the best out of industry for the benefit of our economy, and therefore for the benefit of the nation. Past Secretaries of Stare, including the Conservative ones mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), have seen the importance of


this role and have seen their task as one of creating bridges, getting people together and avoiding confrontation.
Secretaries of State such as Sir Walter Monckton and Robert Carr—the noble Lord as he now is—the most successful of Conservative Ministers of Labour, would have felt their skins shrivel if they had heard the present Secretary of State for Employment. I do not think that I have heard a more confrontational speech from the Front Bench in all the years that I have been here. I have heard similar ones from Back Benchers, including some from the present Secretary of State before he became a right hon. Gentleman, but Ministers should be more responsible. The Secretary of State's job is to get people on both sides of industry to work together, and he will not do that by consistently blackguarding those on one side.
The right hon. Gentleman licked his lips and quoted Frank Chapple on Left wing fiddling of elections. The right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten that the first fiddling of elections on a large scale in British trade unions was done by the Communists in the Electrical Trade Union, as it then was, by Frank Foulkes and Frank Chapple, the latter of whom has now gone full circle in his political views. He is a political authority on election rigging, because he was one of the first practitioners of it. I do not recall that the Secretary of State approved of what Mr. Chapple was doing when the Communists were ballot rigging in the ETU. It was most disgraceful for the right hon. Gentleman to pray that in aid.
I cannot imagine why the Secretary of State is laughing. He may recall that Oliver Goldsmith spoke about
the loud laugh that spoke the vacant mind.

Mr. Tebbit: rose—

Mr. Mikardo: I shall not give way to a giggle. Oh well, perhaps I will.

Mr. Tebbit: I was slightly amused, if I may express my feelings in the most gentle terms, to find the hon. Gentleman basing his attack on me on two things: first, that I had quoted the chairman of the TUC on the subject of lying and the manipulation of votes; and, secondly, that I had not mentioned that the Communist Party is the great expert in this practice and has been doing it for many years. It is very amusing coming from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mikardo: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by that remark. I think that there is a slur and an innuendo in it. My record and reputation are such that I do not have to take the least bit of notice. There is a Portuguese proverb that if one stops to kick every dog that barks at one's heels one never reaches the end of one's journey. I shall not stop to kick that particular dog.
Another issue that arises is that of one or two years' grace. The parts of the Bill that are most repugnant to trade unionists will not be implemented in a hurry, and for good reason. The Government do not want, before the general election, a winter of discontent perhaps preceded or followed by a long hot summer. The Government know jolly well that when some parts of the Bill are implemented they will cause considerable dislocation in industrial relations. They do not mind. However, they want to get

the general election out of the way first. The different times of starts of various parts of the Bill are based entirely on electoral considerations.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) mentioned the damage caused by strikes in the steel industry. That is true. However, the damage is not nearly so great—I invite him to examine the figures—as that done by unregulated imports of steel and the totally uneven application of cuts by the European Coal and Steel Community in the steel producing industries of the member countries of the Community. A reduction in output after 1975 was agreed by the member countries on the basis that these would be shared fairly among the countries that produce steel. What is that fair share-out? One major steel producer has increased production. One has held its production still. The Germans have dropped their production by 10 per cent., and ours has dropped by a quarter. Of all the steel jobs lost in the steel-producing countries of the EEC since 1975, 43 per cent. have occurred in British Steel and only 57 per cent. among the other countries.

Mr. Renton: Is it not the case that the period when imports from other EEC countries into this country increased disastrously and when British Steel's share of the home market fell from over 70 to under 50 per cent. coincided with the 13-week strike two years ago? At that time many customers who had been loyal to British Steel decided that they had to find a second source abroad. As the hon. Gentleman will know, having been involved in international trade, once a new supplier has his foot in the door it is difficult for the old supplier with whom virtually all the business was previously done to oust the new supplier.

Mr. Mikardo: I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman is not right. I recommend the hon. Gentleman to read evidence given by the corporation and its chairman to the Select Committee on Industry and Trade. It is true that during the strike people bought elsewhere. However, the corporation has prided itself—I think, justifiably—on the fact that within a short period of the ending of the strike it recovered all that business. The damage has been done since that time. It is not steel from the Community countries that is mostly to blame. It is also steel from third world countries.
Before the Bill was introduced there was a good deal of consultation, with the circulation of Government papers upon which people were invited to comment. A great deal of material was submitted from many sources, which doubtless found its way to the Secretary of State's desk. Some may have been taken into account and some rejected. Not all points were conceded. Some were in conflict. Nevertheless, there was a process of consultation.
The Bill now before the House is a different measure, in some significant respects, from that which left us a few months ago to go to the other place. Some major new material has been introduced. These proposals could have been included in the Bill originally. If that had happened, the proposals would have been subjected to the same consultation procedure as occurred in respect of the rest of the Bill. There would have been an opportunity for people to consider how these matters would operate in practice and to present their views. No such opportunity exists in respect of the new matter that has been introduced during the Bill's passage through the other place.
Instead of imposing a guillotine on the last breath of the Bill, it would have made more sense if the Government


had followed the tradition of Governments of all parties and provided time for trade unions, employers and many others affected by the Bill to give the same thought and attention to the new measures introduced in the Lords as was accorded to the measures contained in the original Bill. Rushing the Bill through the House at this stage means that the Government have made some major changes without providing the least opportunity for those affected to figure out how they will work and to give their views. This haste is to be gravely deplored.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) reminds us that he has been an hon. Member for many years. With all respect, he has no reason to do so. Everything that he says reminds the House only too clearly that his own thinking is rooted 20 or 30 years in the past. The hon. Gentleman attacks Mr. Chapple for his crimes, as he would have the House believe them to be, when Mr. Chapple was a member of the Communist party 20 or more years ago. The hon. Gentleman may accept that
Joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth".
Mr. Chapple's present performance, I suggest, makes up for all the misdemeanours or worse that the hon. Gentleman suggests that he may have committed in the past.

Mr. Mikardo: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Chapple's present performance, which he praises, includes total opposition to this Bill?

Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman goes too far. I had not gone so far as to praise Mr. Chapple. His present incarnation is a great deal better than his past. He is making progress. I hope that he will continue to make progress. There are many others in the political trade union sphere who, 20 or 30 years ago, were on the far Left and who now see the error of their ways. I hope that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow will join them. The hon. Gentleman recalls from the past the days of Sir Walter Monckton and others on the Conservative Benches who had a different approach to the trade union problem. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the problem then was different from the one that we have now.
The task of getting Britain moving in the days of Ernest Bevin, George Woodcock and Vic Feather was very different from the task facing us today, bearing in mind some of the present members of the general council of the TUC. I am sure that what worries the hon. Gentleman, and also the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) and all the other uncertain supporters of the attack on the Bill, is that they know that the problem lies with a very small handful of people, most of them at the top of the trade union movement, and not with the very large percentage of the trade union membership.
As the Minister of State, Department of Employment, suggested at the Conservative Party conference at Brighton, it is the spectre of democracy that is haunting people such as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield and all the others who seek to defend the status quo. That is why there is a need for hurry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) said, the demonstration on 22 September showed clearly the power and the effect of the closed shop in ensuring that individual members of trade unions take action that they do not want to take. That is

the reason for hurry. We must deal with the problem of dislocation in industry that is caused by the threat of trade union pressure operated by the closed shop.
I am amazed that, given the pressure on time today—we have been told that five hours are not enough—we have debated the motion for 50 minutes so far and no arguments of substance have emerged from the Labour Benches.

Mr. David Winnick: In listening to some Conservative Members speaking about democracy, and bearing in mind what a totally undemocratic organisation the Conservative Party is, it is clear that the trade unions do not need any lectures from Conservative Members on how to operate. Indeed, listening to the Secretary of State talking about trade unions was like listening to someone from the National Front talking about ethnic minorities. As the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, one could see his almost obsessive hatred of trade unions. He had very little to say about the positive virtues of belonging to trade unions. Instead, we heard only criticism and a totally negative attitude.
The difference between several members of the Cabinet and the right hon. Gentleman is that he cannot conceal the loathing and hatred that he has for trade unions. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman were to make a speech about events in Poland there would be buckets of tears about the Polish working people and the repressive way in which the junta has wrongly—certainly in my view—banned Solidarity. But when it is a matter of the right of working people in Britain to build up effective organisations for themselves at their place of employment, the right hon. Gentleman is an enemy of genuine trade unionism in his own country. He will do whatever he can on every occasion to undermine free trade unionism.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke as though there were something sinister about one trade union giving authority to its executive council. What is wrong with that? In the case in question, the executive council would have been duly elected. I am a member of an executive council of a trade union, duly elected by secret ballot. It is part of trade union tradition, as it is part of the tradition of many organisations which have nothing to do with the trade union movement, that an executive council is given due authority in the absence of an annual conference. I do not see anything wrong with that.
When Conservative Members speak about trade union democracy, they do not mention that almost every trade union in Britain has provision for an annual conference—sometimes for a conference every two years—at which rank and file people, elected from the branches, can decide policy. If the other side of industry had anywhere near that form of democracy, it would be very useful for British industry.
As my hon. Friends have said, the Bill is an attack not just on the trade unions, but on working people. In many respects, mass unemployment has been brought back deliberately to discipline people. Month after month, the Secretary of State announces higher unemployment figures. He has not expressed any deep concern that millions of people are denied the right to work—not because of naughty, sinister, wicked trade unions, but largely because of Government policies. Millions of people have to suffer the penalty, the humiliation and the indignity of not being about to get a job, but that is not the


right hon. Gentleman's concern. He can point to any excuse—world conditions, the recession, and so on—for what is happening to so many of our constituents, but his concern is to have anti-trade union legislation.
There have been many other occasions when anti-trade union legislation has been passed in the House because of the Conservative majority. We have only to remember the Industrial Relations Act 1971. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman went into the Division Lobbies as a Back Bencher in enthusiastic support of that measure. But that Act was duly repealed. One could go back many years before 1971 in giving other examples—even starting with the combination Acts. Whenever action has been taken in law against the trade unions, they have always in time won back their rights and built on those rights. The reason why they have been able to do so is that they exist to defend the interests of the working people. There is no justification for trade unions except to act in the interests of working people. That is why they came into existence.
All the poison of the Secretary of State and his colleagues, all the loathing of the trade unions that they are expressing, and all the laws that penalise trade unions, will in the end come to naught. Despite the present Conservative majority in the House, working people will one day win back their right to act effectively at their place of employment. Long after the right hon. Gentleman has been forgotten, trade unions will rightly exist in Britain to defend the people that they exist to defend—the working people, manual and non-manual alike. No action of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government can destroy that basic British freedom—the right to belong to a trade union and to defend one's rights at one's place of employment through membership of a trade union.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 223.

Division No. 319]
[4.38 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Brooke, Hon Peter


Alexander, Richard
Brotherton, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, Michael(Brigg Sc'n)


Alton, David
Browne, John (Winchester)


Ancram, Michael
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Bryan, Sir Paul


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Buck, Antony


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Budgen, Nick


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Bulmer, Esmond


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Burden, Sir Frederick


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Butcher, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Beith, A. J.
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Chapman, Sydney


Best, Keith
Churchill, W. S.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Blackburn, John
Clegg, Sir Walter


Blaker, Peter
Cockeram, Eric


Body, Richard
Colvin, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cope, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Corrie, John


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Costain, Sir Albert


Bowden, Andrew
Cranborne, Viscount


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Crouch, David


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brinton, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.





Dover, Denshore
Lamont, Norman


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lang, Ian


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Latham, Michael


Durant, Tony
Lawrence, Ivan


Dykes, Hugh
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lee, John


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Eggar, Tim
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Elliott, Sir William
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Eyre, Reginald
Loveridge, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Luce, Richard


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Lyell, Nicholas


Faith, Mrs Sheila
McCrindle, Robert


Farr, John
Macfarlane, Neil


Fell, Sir Anthony
MacGregor, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
McQuarrie, Albert


Forman, Nigel
Major, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Marland, Paul


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Marlow, Antony


Freud, Clement
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fry, Peter
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mawby, Ray


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mayhew, Patrick


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mellor, David


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Gorst, John
Miscampbell, Norman


Gow, Ian
Moate, Roger


Gower, Sir Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moore, John


Gray, Hamish
Morgan, Geraint


Grieve, Percy
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Grist, Ian
Mudd, David


Grylls, Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Gummer, John Selwyn
Myles, David


Hamilton, Hon A.
Neale, Gerrard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Needham, Richard


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Tony


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hawksley, Warren
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hayhoe, Barney
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Henderson. Barry
Parris, Matthew


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Hicks, Robert
Patten, John (Oxford)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pawsey, James


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Penhaligon, David


Hooson, Tom
Percival, Sir Ian


Hordern, Peter
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Pitt, William Henry


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pollock, Alexander


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Porter, Barry


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Irvine, Bryant Godman
Prior, Rt Hon James


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Tim


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rhodes James, Robert


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Kimball, Sir Marcus
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rifkind, Malcolm


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Knox, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)






Rossi, Hugh
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Rost, Peter
Thornton, Malcolm


Royle, Sir Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Trippier, David


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Viggers, Peter


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waddington, David


Shepherd, Richard
Wakeham, John


Shersby, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Silvester, Fred
Walker, B. (Perth)


Sims, Roger
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Skeet, T. H. H.
Waller, Gary


Smith, Dudley
Walters, Dennis


Speed, Keith
Ward, John


Speller. Tony
Warren, Kenneth


Spence, John
Watson, John


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Squire, Robin
Wheeler, John


Stainton, Keith
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Stanbrook, Ivor
Whitney, Raymond


Stanley, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Stevens, Martin
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stokes, John
Wolfson, Mark


Stradling Thomas, J.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)



Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Tellers for the Ayes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Carol Mather.


Thompson, Donald





NOES


Abse, Leo
Davidson, Arthur


Adams, Allen
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Allaun, Frank
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Anderson, Donald
Deakins, Eric


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Ashton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Atkinson, N.(H'gey)
Dixon, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Dobson, Frank


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dormand, Jack


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Douglas, Dick


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dubs, Alfred


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunnett, Jack


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Eadie, Alex


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Eastham, Ken


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
English, Michael


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Evans, John (Newton)


Buchan, Norman
Ewing, Harry


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Ian
Field, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Canavan, Dennis
Ford, Ben


Cant, R. B.
Forrester, John


Carmichael, Neil
Foster, Derek


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Foulkes, George


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
George, Bruce


Cohen, Stanley
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Coleman, Donald
Golding, John


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Gourley, Harry


Conlan, Bernard
Graham, Ted


Cook, Robin F.
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Cowans, Harry
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Crowther, Stan
Hardy, Peter


Cryer, Bob
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Dalyell, Tam
Haynes, Frank





Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Pavitt, Laurie


Heffer, Eric S.
Pendry, Tom


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'11)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Homewood, William
Prescott, John


Hooley, Frank
Race, Reg


Hoyle, Douglas
Radice, Giles


Huckfield, Les
Richardson, Jo


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Janner, Hon Greville
Robertson, George


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


John, Brynmor
Rooker, J. W.


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Sandelson, Neville


Jones, Barry (East Pint)
Sever, John


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheerman, Barry


Kerr, Russell
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Kilfedder, James A.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Short, Mrs Renée


Kinnock, Neil
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Lambie, David
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Lestor, Miss Joan
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spearing, Nigel


Litherland, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Stallard, A. W.


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Lyons, Edward (Brac'f'd W)
Stoddart, David


McCartney, Hugh
Stott, Roger


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Strang, Gavin


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Straw, Jack


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


McKelvey, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


McMahon, Andrew
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


McNally, Thomas
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


McNamara, Kevin
Tilley, John


McTaggart, Robert
Tinn, James


Magee, Bryan
Torney, Tom


Marks, Kenneth
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Marshall, D(G'gow S ton)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Wardell, Gareth


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Watkins, David


Maxton, John
Weetch, Ken


Maynard, Miss Joan
Wellbeloved, James


Meacher, Michael
Welsh, Michael


Mikardo, Ian
White, Frank R.


Milian, Rt Hon Bruce
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Whitehead, Phillip


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Whitlock, William


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Winnick, David


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Woodall, Alec


Newens, Stanley
Woolmer, Kenneth


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wright, Sheila


O'Neill, Martin
Young, David (Bolton E)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



Palmer, Arthur
Tellers for the Noes:


Park, George
Mr. George Morton and


Parker, John
Mr. Ron Leighton.


Parry, Robert

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Order of the House [20 April] be supplemented as follows:—

Lords Amendments

1. The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed in this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order of 20 April, each part of those


proceedings shall, if not prevously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table set out below.

TABLE


Proceedings


Lords Amendments
Time for Conclusion


1
7.00 pm


2 to 14
8.00 pm


15 to 22
9.15 pm


23 to 41
10.00 pm

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a)Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, that this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b)Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i)put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii)put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii)put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and
(iv)put forthwith the Question, that this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c)as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords

Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.

4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion

(a)Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Questions already proposed from the Chair;
(b)Mr. Speaker shall then—

(i)put forthwith the Questions on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item in the Lords Message;
(ii)put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

5.—(1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which they are appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

Orders of the Day — Employment Bill

Lords amendments considered.

New Clause A

EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT

Lords amendment: No. 1, before clause 1, insert:
A.—(1) Section 16 of the Companies Act 1967 (additional matters of general nature to be dealt with in directors' report) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), the following paragraph is added at the end—
(h) in the case of relevant companies, contain a statement describing the action that has been taken during the financial year to introduce, maintain or develop arrangements aimed at—
(i)providing employees systematically with information on matters of concern to them as employees,
(ii)consulting employees or their representatives on a regular basis so that the views of employees can be taken into account in making decisions which are likely to affect their interests,
(iii)encouraging the involvement of employees in the company's performance through an employees' share scheme or by some other means,
(iv)achieving a common awareness on the part of all employees of the financial and economic factors affecting the performance of the company.
(3) After subsection (1) there is inserted the following subsection
(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(h) above, a company is a "relevant company" if the average number of persons employed by it in each week during the financial year exceeds 250; and for the purposes of this subsection the number of persons employed shall be the quotient derived by dividing by the number of weeks in the financial year the number derived by ascertaining, in relation to each of those weeks, the number of persons who, under contracts of service, were employed in the week (whether throughout it or not) by the company and adding up the numbers ascertained.
(4) After subsection (7) there is inserted the following subsection—
(8) In subsection (1)(h) above "employee" does not include a person employed to work wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom; and for the purposes of subsection (l A) above no regard shall be had to such a person."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) to move the first sub-amendment to the proposed new clause, and I suggest that it will be in the interests of the House to discuss also the three remaining sub-amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street and others:
In subsection (2)(h) leave out 'aimed at' and insert 'for'.
In subsection (2)(h) (i) leave out 'as employees' and insert
'including in particular, information about the arrangements by means of which the company carry out any statutory obligations to which the company may be subject regarding consultations with recognised independent trade unions,'.
In subsection (2)(h) (i) at end insert
'and in particular, information about the extent of the company's compliance with the requirements of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944,'.

Mr. Giles Raclice: I beg to move, as an amendment to the proposed Lords amendment, in subsection (2)(h) .after 'statement', insert
'a copy of which shall be issued free of charge to every employee of the company'.
The Lords amendment is an extremely modest measure. It is hardly worthy of the name "reform". It is not that employee participation, or employee involvement as, apparently, it is new called, or, as the Labour Party prefers to call it, industrial democracy, is not of the highest importance. It is.
In moral terms, the democratic case within industry has the same basis as he democratic argument everywhere—that every person should have a say in those decisions which affect his or her life. Every survey confirms the obvious point that the deeper the individual involvement, the greater the job satisfaction.
There is another argument that is especially relevant to our predicament today. It will not be possible to carry through the re-equipment and reinvestment in British industry that is so desperately needed unless employees a re fully involved. We may examine foreign examples. Those countries that are doing best—Japan, for example, about which we hear a great deal from the Prime Minister—are those in which employees are fully involved.
Unfortunately, the Lords amendment merely amounts to a small change in directors' reports to shareholders. Companies will be able to say what they have done to provide information for, to consult and to encourage involvement of employees through a shares scheme or some other means. If companies have done nothing, they need only say that they have nothing to report. As I understand it, there is nothing in the amendment to compel any company to do anything about information, consultation or representation. I do not believe that it will do any harm—although I regret that it is contained in this infamous anti-trade, union Bill—but it is unlikely to do much good.
The first amendment speaks for itself. Company reports that include a section on employee involvement should go to all employees, not just to shareholders. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) present. When he moved his Bill on directors' reports, he said:
It is clearly desirable that the statement should be written not in the language beloved of accountants"—
hear, hear—
but in terms to which employees can respond and that they should each receive a copy."—[Official Report,7 April 1982; Vol. 21, c. 956.]
That is precisely what the amendment would do.
The third amendment stresses the role of trade unions in employee participation. It also makes companies report on how they are carrying out their legal obligations to unions, such as in section 17 of the Employment Protection Act 1975, which provides information on collective bargaining, section 99 of the same Act, which notifies the procedure on redundancies and section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 which deals with the appointment of safety representatives. That would be a useful amendment.
In reply, the Minister may speak as though Government support for the amendment is a great new Government initiative. It should be clear that the Government resisted an amendment on those lines both in Committee and on Report in the House of Lords. They were defeated on Report. That is why we are discussing the amendment today.
The Government's attitude towards industrial democracy has been uniformly negative. From time to time they say that, in principle, they are in favour of it, but they have strongly resisted any legislation. The Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. and learned Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Waddington), told a personnel conference at Gatwick on 14 May that calls for legislation are misguided and that
there is no system which will suit the needs of every company and any system imposed by Government would cut across and lead to the abandonment of schemes of partnership in some industries which are working well.
That is an amazing statement.
We also know that the Government have expressed their consistent hostility both to the EEC fifth directive on worker representation on boards and to the Vredeling proposals on information and consultation. I understand that they have been threatening to use the veto. We know that Conservative MEPs watered down the fifth directive when it came before the European Parliament in May. We also know that, acting as the mouthpiece of the Government and the multinationals who orchestrated an unprecedented lobbying campaign, Conservative MEPs tore the guts out of the Vredeling plans only a fortnight ago. They voted to deny workers access to the head offices of multinationals, they voted to exclude firms with fewer than 1,000 employees and they voted to grant management the exclusive right to decide what information should be given to employees. No wonder the Conservative Group spokesman boasted with ill-concealed delight "Vredeling is dead."
it is against that background of unrelenting hostility that Ministers appear in the House today as friends of employee involvement or participation. That is rank hypocrisy. Having been defeated in the House of Lords, the Government suddenly realised that the amendment would be useful as a fig leaf to hide their utter distaste for industrial democracy. They will now tell the European Commissioners "We are making good progress on industrial democracy so we do not have to take any notice of your directives." In other words, the Government are using this flimsiest of window dressing as their alibi for inaction. That is the truth of the matter and I challenge the Government to deny it. Even the Conservative trade union group, at least one member of which is here today and which, in line with the Conservative Party's promise before the election, is asking for a code of practice, has been disappointed by the Government's lack of progress.
5 pm
Any objective assessment of the past three years is bound to show how little progress has been made. The recession and the Government's reactionary attitude have encouraged employers to resort far more to unilateral decision-making. The Government have quoted the CBI's survey. That survey shows that only a third of British companies have consultative arrangements of any kind. We also know from other studies that, although British employees would like a greater say, they have a remarkably low level of involvement in decisions that affect them. The level is lower than in most other European countries. What is required now is action, not window dressing on the lines of the Lords amendment.
I am deeply disappointed that the Social Democratic Party's leaders have learnt so little from their long

membership of the Labour Party. They do not seem to realise that if any system of industrial democracy is to succeed it must have the support and active involvement of the trade unions which represent the majority of British workers. The Social Democrats' panacea is the introduction of works councils on the German model in all firms employing more than 1,000 workers. They have forgotten that, whereas all German companies have had works councils for 60 years or more—indeed, they formed part of the Weimar constitution—in Britain only a small minority of firms have such councils, and their experience has not been exactly encouraging. In this country, the characteristic shop floor organisation is through shop stewards' committees, and shop floor bargaining and any effective system of industrial democracy must build on that. Characteristically, the Social Democrats, in their search for electoral popularity, have chosen to ignore that fact. Characteristically, too, they have fudged the issue of how workers are to be represented at top level. Are they in favour of that or are they not? No one would know from reading their documents.
The Labour Party's proposals on employee involvement have had the support of both the TUC, about which we have heard so much today, and the Labour Party conference. They are firmly based on trade union organisation and the extension of collective bargaining and they go far beyond the amendment. An incoming Labour Government would not leave the matter to management, as the Lords amendment does, but would legislate to introduce new rights in three areas—information, consultation and representation.
We have three aims with regard to information. First, we wish to spread and to improve disclosure practice throughout industry. Secondly, we wish to expand the range of matters relevant to the running of companies—for example, investment plans, closures, takeovers, performance, output, orders, sales, and so on. Thirdly, we wish to assist the full understanding of companies' operations.
We go beyond the mere provision of information because we believe that disclosure without debate is meaningless. Therefore, we propose that management should be obliged to consult the unions on all impending decisions covered by information disclosure rules.
Finally, we propose a right of representation so that workers' representatives will have a right to parity on policy boards, but they will also be able to choose a lesser proportion of representation and different methods if they wish. This will not only assist the provision of information and consultation, but ensure that the voice of the employee representative is heard at the top level.

Mr. Tim Renton: On the matter of representation, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Labour Party is now abandoning the Bullock proposals and no longer supports the suggestion that worker directors should be on every major board, but still believes that they should be nominated and chosen by the trade unions only?

Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman is slightly confused. Of course we go beyond the Bullock proposals. This is a more comprehensive approach to the problem. It covers information and consultation as well as representation. However, if trade unions support the idea of having workers' representatives on boards and believe that it would be useful, they would have the right to establish it.
Our proposals have three advantages. First, they would be established naturally through existing employee organisations. We are not setting up something entirely new.

Mr. David Penhaligon: If the trade unions considered it a good idea to have worker directors, would those worker directors be selected by the unions or by a ballot of all the employees of the company?

Mr. Radice: We are not committed, but we have made it clear that any form of industrial democracy must be based on the trade unions. We would not set up a separate channel of organisation, as the Liberals and the Social Democrats propose. We believe that basically this should be done through the trade unions. We do not believe in elections through works councils, as I think the Social Democrats and the Liberals have proposed, because that would be foreign to our traditions. Our proposals are also flexible.

Mr. Renton: The Bullock proposals specified worker directors chosen by authorised trade unions only. Many of us found that point in the Bullock proposals thoroughly objectionable. Is the hon. Gentleman now saying from the Labour Opposition Front Bench that worker directors should be nominated and voted for by all members of the work force, whether or not they are in trade unions, or does he still hold that they should be chosen by the trade unions?

Mr. Radice: In each company where the trade unions believe that there should be worker representation on the board, a joint council of all the trade unions ought to be set up and the worker directors should be chosen through that representative body. If the hon. Gentleman is confused about this, I shall be delighted to send him a copy of "Economic Planning and Industrial Democracy" which contains our proposals.

Mr. John Grant: Is there to be a ballot in which all the employees take part? That is still not clear.

Mr. Radice: Some trade unions might believe that such a ballot ought to take place. It would be entirely up to them. We are not laying that down. Interestingly enough, it is not laid down in the Social Democratic Party's proposals either.

Mr. Grant: The hon. Gentleman is attacking us for that.

Mr. Radice: No, I am not. I am attacking the Social Democrats because they do not say what they favour. That is rather different.
We believe that our proposals are flexible, because it is left to workers' representatives to decide the pace and, through information and consultation, gradually to build up to representation. That is the way that it should be done.
Lastly, and importantly, we link our proposals on industrial democracy to industrial recovery. The Labour Party believes that considerable Government intervention will be required if British industry is to recover from the world recession and Government policies. That is why we propose industrial planning. However, it will be planning with a difference, because, through industrial democracy, for the first time, there will be proper input from below. Planning will not be imposed from above.
For those three reasons we think that our proposals are realistic and relevant. At the very least, unlike the other

parties in the House, we are taking industrial democracy seriously. We are not proposing a Lords amendment at a late stage of an anti-union Bill and pretending that it is a great advance in industrial democracy. We are taking the issue seriously, as we did in the last Parliament with the Bullock report and the publication of the White Paper which—let the House remember—was prepared by a Cabinet Committee chaired by, I believe, the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs Williams).
We shall not oppose the Lords amendment, despite the fact that it is a flimsy bit of window dressing. We have moved an amendment to it, for which I hope we shall have the support of Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Members for Kidderminster and for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton)
The Lords amendment does not measure up to what is required in British industry. The next Labour Government will take relevant and realistic action to establish a framework of democratic rights in industry.
We believe that that will be good for employees, management and British industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment(Mr. David Waddington): Before I deal with the clause and the amendments, perhaps I shall be forgiven if I say a word or two about the speech of the hon. Member for Chesterle-Street (Mr Radice). He told us that industrial democracy was the Labour Party's aim. The trouble is that many hon. Members doubt whether the Labour Party any longer has the faintest idea of the meaning of the word "democracy".
It was obvious from some of the points made in the last debate that some people of considerable influence in the Labour Party and in the trades union movement did not know much about democracy when they threatened their members with disciplinary action if they did not come out on strike. That is why, as hon. Members know, we shall be consulting about internal democracy in trade unions, with a view to examining the possibility of legislation in that area.
It is clear that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street was talking not of industrial democracy but of shop steward power. He is even turning his back on the concept of one man, one vote from the shop floor. His mind is still firmly rooted to the single channel, which has nothing whatever to do with industrial participation and employee involvement which we are discussing today. The defects of that system have been apparent for years and I should have thought that all intelligent people should now be looking away from it for other ways to get rid of the "them and us" attitude in industry and making the desired progress.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) is present. He has been a pioneer in employee involvement and speaks with unrivalled authority. I notice that some Labour Members laugh, but it is a fact that my hon. Friend is engaged in a business which has practised employee involvement for years and is a model which other companies would be well advised to follow. It is nice that now and again there are hon. Members in the House who are able to speak with authority rather than simply mouthing political slogans with little idea of what is involved. My hon. Friend's persuasive advocacy of legislation requiring companies to include in their annual reports a statement about their


arrangements for employee involvement has done much to persuade the Government of the merits of the clause which we are now discussing.
5.15 pm
The House will remember that the Bill followed extensive consultations on the Green Paper on "Trade Union Immunities". During the Bill's passage we were, perhaps not surprisingly, reluctant to see added clauses covering matters which had not been canvassed in the Green Paper. Therefore, when a new clause on employee involvement was tabled in another place we made it clear that we had every sympathy with the proposal's objectives, but were, on balance, inclined to advise against its adoption. We were then, and remain now, conscious of the need to avoid imposing unjustifiable additional burdens and costs on industry. Everybody should approach a subject of this nature with the need for British industry to become competitive in the forefront of his mind. It is our duty to see that unnecessary additional costs are not imposed.
The matter was cogently argued by Lord Rochester. When his new clause was carried on Report, the Government immediately accepted the decision in principle. However, we felt that there might be some difficulty about the form of the clause. As it was industry which would have to operate the requirement, we felt that it was important that industry should have an opportunity to comment. We issued a consultative letter on 4 August and more than 80 detailed and constructive replies were received. I am grateful to those organisations that responded.
I am also grateful to Lord Rochester, who was kind enough to come and see me and with whom I had a very helpful discussion. The upshot was that the Government presented the revised version of the clause for debate on Third Reading in another place, and it was agreed after discussion.
Subsection (1) gives effect to the general wish expressed by industry that requirements relating to company reports should form part of company law. Subsection (1) amends section 16 of the Companies Act 1967, which deals with the contents of such reports.
Subsection (2) sets out the substantive reporting requirements, and the introduction to the subsection requires that a statement be included in the directors' report on action taken during the financial year to introduce, maintain or develop arrangements for employee involvement. Hon. Members will see that the word "maintain" is new. That was inserted as a result of our consultative exercise and is a good illustration of the value of consulting on such matters.
Many people who replied to us pointed out that companies which had long-established arrangements and had already made progress towards developing a high standard of employee involvement would not, without the word "maintain", have been required to report at all. That would clearly have been absurd, because one of the advantages of the clause is that matters such as employee involvement will have to be discussed at boardroom level and included in company reports. Company directors will be able to look at other companies' experiences to see what

they are doing in that area and study whether they can emulate it to the advantage of themselves and their employees.
Paragraphs (i) to (iv) describe the particular employee involvement activities that companies will have to cover in their statements, and it is to that part of the clause that the Opposition have tabled amendments. If I had a suspicious mind, I might have thought that tabling amendments at this stage was an attempt to frustrate the Bill's progress, but I am sure that it would not be right to be so suspicious.
I have studied all the amendments carefully. The first amendment requires that a copy of the statement about employee involvement should be issued to each employee. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary. It may be desirable, and it may be good practice to issue such a statement to each employee, but any company that has developed arrangements will take steps to bring them to their employees' attention. More importantly, companies use a variety of means for communicating, such as special employee reports, notice boards and presentations by senior management, and it would be wrong to prescribe one means that would also, incidentally, be costly. Indeed, there should be no doubt about the cost. It may be a desirable step, but it is not the type of step that should be made compulsory.

Mr. Radice: Our amendment does not say that other means could not be taken. We are merely laying down one means. The Minister has brought up the issue of cost again, but how much would such a measure cost the average firm?

Mr. Waddington: Obviously the answer depends on the number of employees and the complexity of the operations being carried out. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the amendment allows for other means to be used, why has this means alone been set out?

Mr. Harold Walker: Doubtless the hon. and learned Gentleman will tell me if I am wrong, but I understand that every shareholder in a limited company is required by the Companies Act to be supplied with a copy of the company's report. I see nods from Conservative Members confirming that I am right. Why should that information be provided to the shareholders and not to the workers? Surely the giving of such information should be the fundamental starting point for any employee involvement. If it is possible to bear the cost for shareholders, why is it not possible to do so for workers, whose lives are integrally bound up with the company's well-being and fortunes?

Mr. Waddington: One obvious difference is that the shareholders may be spread across the globe, while employees are under one roof or at any rate at a location at which it would be easy to communicate with them by other means.
The second Opposition amendment states that arrangements should be "for", rather than "aimed at", providing employees with information and so on. I am a little baffled by that and I doubt whether the amendment would materially alter the meaning of the clause. Of those whom we consulted, no one suggested such a change. We consulted not only employers but trade unions and virtually all of those who responded to the Green Paper entitled "Trade Union Immunities".

Mr. Walker: I had not intended to inflict a speech on the House, but the amendment stands in my name. As a result of the amendment, the clause would refer to
action that has been taken during the financial year to introduce, maintain or develop arrangements for—

(i)providing employees…
(ii)consulting employees".

In other words, it would get rid of the permissive "aimed at". That is the sort of waffle that is often used in election addresses to avoid the issue. It would make the provision mandatory. A company could not say that it aimed to do something; it would have to say that it had done it. That would remove the present permissiveness and make the clause more effective.

Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman is losing sight of the fact that, apart from the duty to put something in the company report, there is nothing mandatory about the clause. There is nothing in the clause to require the company to consult—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman cannot understand what I am saying and I certainly cannot understand what he is saying. It would take a lawyer with a far more confused mind than mine to see the important distinction between "aimed at" and "for".
If the amendment is meant to require companies to report on what they have achieved rather than on what they have sought to achieve, it would have little effect, because arrangements that have been newly developed or introduced in the financial year are unlikely to have yielded any results by the time the report is made.

Mr. Walker: I am trying to avoid making a speech, but perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood me because I have been too brief. My point is the very one that he has confirmed—that there is nothing mandatory in the clause. It is entirely permissive, and to that extent it is meaningless. Our amendment would take away the permissive element and turn the clause into a provision that imposed an obligation on companies.
I shall re-read the clause as it would stand if amended. It would read:
in the case of relevant companies, contain a statement describing the action that has been taken during the financial year to introduce, maintain or develop arrangements for—

(i)providing employees systematically with information…
(ii)consulting employees…
(iii)encouraging the involvement"

At present the clause merely requires a company to say what it has done to aim at those things. As amended, it would not only have to aim at something, but do it. It may well be that all the clever and sophisticated lawyers who advise the Minister have said that the language of our amendment is inappropriate for statutes. However, we all know that it is traditional for Ministers to consider the substance of the argument and, if persuaded by it and by the views of the House, to ask parliamentary counsel to find the right form of words to achieve the intended effect. I may have chosen the wrong words, but I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman understands our aims and that he will address himself to them instead of to semantics.

Mr. Waddington: I am sorry. I do not wish to lecture the right hon. Gentleman, but if he reads the clause he will see that there would be nothing mandatory about it even if one were to substitute "for" for "aimed at". We are discussing merely a reporting requirement and not a clause that will make employers provide employees systematically with information on matters of concern to them as

employees. It merely attempts to point out the type of issues that a board of directors should try to canvass in the annual report. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that "aimed at" is not mandatory, but the substitution of "for" for "aimed at" would not make the provision mandatory. Therefore, the argument is boring and unnecessary.
The words "aimed at" seemed satisfactory to those who were consulted and it certainly did not seem to be an unsatisfactory formula to the trade unions that replied to the consultative exercise. In those circumstances, I cannot see any powerful argument for moving away from a clause that was found acceptable by the other place and, in particular, by Lord Rochester.
The Opposition's third amendment states that a statement should include arrangements for carrying out statutory obligations to consult recognised trade unions. It seems unnecessary, because there are adequate legal sanctions for failure to consult. Of course, if there is a failure to consult, those who are entitled to be consulted, such as the recognised trade unions, will be the first to complain and they will not have to look at a company annual report to discover whether they have been consulted.
It is strange to suggest that such verbiage should be included in an annual report. I stress that if there is a failure to consult about redundancies the trade unions concerned can go to industrial tribunals, which can impose sanctions and make protective awards. There is no need to use an annual report to draw the attention of unions to the fact that they might have a remedy before an industrial tribunal. Long before the publication of the annual report the trade union will have been to the tribunal and back.
The fourth Opposition amendment states that
information about the extent of the company's compliance with the requirements of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944
should be included in the statement. There are recent more general requirements in regulations for the inclusion of information on policy towards the employment of disabled persons. It would be right, surely, to allow those new regulations, which require reporting on policy towards disabled persons, to settle down. This again was not a matter that was raised in consultation.
5.30 pm
I revert now to the new clause itself and to subsections (3) and (4), which deal with matters of scope. The only change of substance is that the clause will now apply to companies with 250 employees or more, instead of 200. That is a sensible threshold, because it is in line with the regulations imposing the obligation to report on policy regarding the employment of disabled people. There must be powerful arguments for uniformity.
In conclusion, I repeat that we are grateful to those who have inspired the new clause. It should help stimulate the continued growth and development of employee involvement arrangements in British industry. We believe in removing restrictions from industry rather than in imposing them. It is of the utmost importance to remove the "them and us" attitude in industry and to get home the message that companies which have implemented employee involvement policies have reaped tangible gains in terms of improved industrial relations and performance.
Progress on employee involvement has, unfortunately, been uneven, and more could be done. This provision will encourage progress by ensuring that attention is given in the boardroom to company policy on employee


involvement. We also feel that shareholders, for whom the directors' report is designed, and the general public have a legitimate interest in companies' activities in this area.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street referred to something that I said not long ago in a speech about employee involvement. On that occasion, if my recollection is correct, I spoke of the danger of laying down by law fixed patterns of employee involvement and pointed to the danger of our cutting across existing policies for employee involvement which are working well. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that there was something strange in that statement. It seems to me to be only common sense. There are great dangers in laying down a rigid framework when circumstances are so varied, particularly when companies in British industry are confronted with differing problems.
That is why we are more than sceptical about the proposals for legislation in the draft directives issued by the European Commission. We are not ashamed of saying that we are more than sceptical. We still believe that successful employee involvement depends, above all, on a spirit of co-operation and that any formal arrangements are best introduced voluntarily and tailored to meet the needs of individual enterprises. The clause is valuable in underlining the voluntary approach.
It is a modest but important change. It is now up to industry to decide whether to respond constructively to make a success of the voluntary approach to employee involvement. I have every confidence that it will.

Mr. Stan Thorne: I am at a loss to some degree with regard to the discussion that has taken place this afternoon, because I was not a member of the Committee that discussed the Bill in detail. However, certain comments by the Minister suggest to me that, with regard to the new clause and to the amendments submitted by my hon. Friends, the subject under discussion is undustrial democracy—a point that he made on a number of occasions.
What baffles me about the Minister's remarks is that the words "aimed at", which are contained in new clause A, place no responsibility on the employer really to carry out the spirit of the clause, while the word "for", which is suggested by the Opposition amendment, does imply that the employer will do something of value. We will never change the "them and us" situation until employers have a responsibility to carry out the spirit of the clause.
There is another aspect that disturbs me. It may have been debated at length in Committee, but I see no reference to it in the Bill. I am referring to the areas in which employees will receive information and be able to participate in decision-making within the company about its future. Although it might be suggested that there is no need to mention specific items, there is no mention of profits, costs, pricing policies or investment plans. There is no mention of product prospects within the market and the possibility of diversification in order to make it a viable company in which the employees can respond in the way that is suggested in the new clause, which refers to
encouraging the involvement of employees in the company's performance".
We shall get involvement in the company's performance only when the employee feels that he can be involved in real terms in the decision-making within the

company. Industrial democracy, if it means anything at all, means that the employee can participate in a discussion about the forward investment plans of the company, the product prospects, to which I have already referred, or, indeed, possible merger proposals in which a company may be involved. Is that not a matter of which the employee should be fully apprised?
While the annual report deals largely with what has happened in the past, it will nevertheless deal with the prospects for the future, or the shareholders will wish to know why it does not. If that is to be the case, prior to the writing of the report there should have been some dialogue—probably extensive discussions—between the management of the company and the employees at various levels within the firm.
If the employer, as is being suggested, is to be encouraged to maximise a relationship in the factory—the feeling of "we are all in this together"; an esprit de corps—it is vital that the employee should be able to make a contribution in real terms and to feel a sense of overall commitment to the decision-making. I am not referring to issues such as whether the curtains in the canteen are of the right colour, or to the relationships that exist between one canteen and another, or even about the siting of the stores, although often employers do not take sufficient notice of employees' points of view on such issues. Employees should certainly be consulted as of right about the future of their company and matters that directly affect their economic interests.

Mr. Esmond Bulmer: I support the Lords in their first amendment. My hon. Friends and I are delighted at the Minister's response to the initiative from their Lordships' House. The clause resembles closely the Companies (Directors' Reports) (Employee Involvement) Bill which I and my hon. Friends recently introduced but which failed through lack of time. The essential provisions are the same—information for employees on a systematic basis, regular consultation and the encouragement of active involvement through profit sharing and other means.
In converstations earlier in the year before introducing our Bill, I found the Minister extremely sympathetic. He had, however, to consider whether the annual report was the right place for such an initiative, whether a code of practice might be preferable, or whether, in the light of what was going on in the European Parliament, such provision as is contained in the clause might form part of a larger Bill. I am glad that after due consideration of the state of the debate in Europe, Lord Rochester's initiative and the views of industry, the Government have decided to table the new clause now.
The clause follows the provision in section 46 of the Companies Act 1980 under which directors are to take into account the interests of their employees. This reversed the judgment in Parkes v Daily News and was a necessary first step to developing a more positive approach to employee participation.
The next logical step was to require directors to spell out in the annual report how they did this. The clause does that. No two companies behave in exactly the same way and it would be wrong to believe that a rigid formula would be appropriate in all cases. The new clause accepts that. In essence, it calls for a statement on industrial


relations in the company. That will be a record that the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) rightly said should be available to all employees.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street should consider, however, whether a company with many plants which produces for employees in a particular plant a statement which is fuller and more relevant to them than the annual report needs to provide each employee with a copy. In such cases it might not be appropriate to provide a full annual report. Otherwise, I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman said. Equally, I accept what the Minister said about avoiding unnecessary cost and placing a further burden on industry.
It is important to ensure that at least once a year boards of companies consider formally the state of industrial relations in their companies and what action might be taken to improve them.
During discussions I hope that a number of questions will be asked. For instance: What are we doing to meet the requirements of the law and our own objectives? Are these shared by our employees? If not, why not? What are they asking us to do? Are we sympathetic? If not, why not? What are other companies doing? Is this or that a good idea and should we investigate it? How does our record look? What have we done in the past 12 months and what do we intend to do in the next 12 months? By no means all companies employing more than 250 people go through that process—certainly not at board level.
It is important that the chairman of a company—not the managing director, not the personnel director or somebody senior in line management—is responsible for ensuring that this happens. In some cases he will be able to draw on the considerable experience of non-executive directors. Such a process will change the present position for the better. It should be a serious exercise so that the press and the trade unions believe that considered judgments have been made and that they have the right to challenge them. If they are not satisfied, they should be able to make that clear.
5.45 pm
At the time of the Bullock report it was clear that there was an absence of any record of what was going on in companies. The Bill will provide some record in due course. How good it will be, only time will tell. I accept that some companies will do no more than the minimum. Others—and we have some first-class companies—will provide a record of their experience which will be valuable to others. Much will depend upon the spirit of a company's approach. Some will be positive and some will not. I hope that those which are not will recognise that if further legislation which they do not like is passed, it might be because they did not respond to the opportunity to state their case positively.
The time is ripe in another way for such an approach. Many companies have established a new unity as a result of the hard times that they have experienced. The outlook for improved profitability is there in many cases and therefore the moment is right for the introduction of profit sharing.
Research in the United States has shown consistently that companies with profit sharing outperform those that do not have it. I have no doubt that similar research here will establish that companies that go out of their way to recruit the understanding and commitment of the work force perform much better than companies that do not.
The more that can be clone to develop a common interest and deeper understanding of how companies function, the better the prospects for those who work in British industry. I wonder how many people who worked in the motor and steel industries and who are out of work today might be in work if they had understood the financial state of the companies for which they worked when they went on strike.
I am sure that in due course the Minister will wish to address himself to a glaring omission in the Bill's approach—the exclusion of the public sector. There is a greater problem in the public sector in terms of "us and them" than in the majority of private companies.

Mr. Harold Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that people are now out of work because at some time they went on strike? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that throughout the land bankrupt companies which have never experienced a strike have closed as a result of the Government's policies?

Mr. Bulmer: If the right hon. Gentleman went to Longbridge and talked about what went on in the past, he would find that the point that I have just made is readily understood.
The proposed new clause is a modest first step. Today's debate has shown that it is as far as we can go while commanding support from all sides. I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) said about taking part in decision making. I look for further improvements in that area. I also look forward eventually to establishing a body representative of all employees with which a board consults on the basis of "one man, one vote" taken in secret. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street might think that is as provocative as some of us thought the Bullock proposals. The fact that we can go forward in such short steps is a legacy from what happened when the Bullock report made such biased and provocative proposals.
I believe that most people who work in industry would prefer to have changes in industrial relations introduced on the basis of consensus so that they may have some confidence that the rules will not change and change again.
The clause is consistent with a voluntary approach, but at the same time it requires companies to take action to produce information that should increase understanding and, therefore, improve the chances that when we come to further legislation—as I have no doubt we shall—that legislation will be based on tested and proven experience.

Mr. Penhaligon: I am delighted that the amendment has reached this stage, and I have no doubt that it will become part of the Bill. It was proposed by Lord Rochester, but during the eulogies paid to him everybody has chosen to forget that he is a Liberal peer. I expect that most people can work out why that was not mentioned. The amendment was passed only because it had broad support from the Social Democrats and the Labour Party. Without that support it would have never been passed in the other place. I am pleased that the Government accept the amendment and that it is to be part of the Bill.
I agree with the comment of the Opposition that it is not an enormous breakthrough in industrial democracy or participation, but it is a step in the right direction. The House should work towards a system of industrial relations in which most employees in Great Britain can see that the success of the companies for which they work is to their


advantage. I was a fitter-turner apprentice when I was 17, and unfortunately that was not the attitude that existed among even a minority of the workers on the shop floor. I should confess that that was 20 years ago, but I do not believe that those attitudes have changed much. The clause makes a small but useful contribution towards the creation of that sort of attitude, and for that reason must be welcomed.
The attitude of employers was often that there was no point in telling employees anything because they were not interested. It was extremely frustrating for those who were interested—albeit perhaps a minority—not to be able to find out anything about the enterprise in which they were involved, and not to be able to interest their colleagues and friends and make them more aware of what was going on. There are people on the shop floor who are interested in their company. They are well informed and well read—not in a classical university way—and they have had the initiative to find out what is happening. They understand, and, used properly, they can be a great asset to the management. They can pass on information when they meet socially and at work. The House should be seen to be encouraging that, and I am pleased that the amendment is to be part of the Bill.
A large company in my constituency employs 5,500 people and produces large quantities of china clay. The company has worked hard over decades to build up the respect of its employees. If one dares to attack the English China Clay Company, the employees will be after one for having the audacity to do so. They feel that the well-being and prosperity of the company are to their benefit, and they are absolutely right. It is good to see that attitude and realise that a few companies in Great Britain can achieve that degree of co-operation and interest.
I shall probably ruin the political career of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) by saying that I rather like him, but he should re-read his speech. At the beginning he said that the Labour Party's idea on industrial democracy involves everybody who works in the company. If those really are their ideas, the Lib-Lab pact could have passed some useful legislation before the last election. Every attempt to reach an agreement between the Liberal and Labour Parties failed, because we insisted that all company employees should be involved, while the Labour Party insisted that it should be trade union nominees only. That is a fundamental principle. I am pleased that my party stood firm and did not allow such legislation to go through the House.
If the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street is right, that is a delightful breakthrough. If he is not right, he should be more careful about the precise words that he uses when talking about industrial democracy. I thank the Government for their co-operation, and Lord Rochester for taking the initiative in the first place.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am not going to get involved in arguments between the Liberal and Labour Parties about what should and should not have been done as a result of the Lib-Lab pact. I leave history to attend to that. The next Conservative Government will probably ensure that some of those wishes will be fulfilled and that all employees will become involved in what the Liberal Party calls industrial democracy.
I have always kept away from industrial democracy as I believe that it is a rather dangerous description when what is really wanted is individual participation at the work place. That is different from industrial democracy. Many of the problems in British industry have their origins in the secrecy of management, and, as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) mentioned, in union intransigence. The problems that we face are not the result of one group of people becoming involved in one set of ideas; it is a collective matter. Management has a responsibility as well. That is one of the reasons why I am happy to support the amendment. I believe that it is a good amendment and should have the support of the House.
The Bill deals quite properly with the intransigence of unions. Therefore, on the Government Benches we are happy to see an amendment that deals with management secrecy. I have never attempted to defend such secrecy, because I believe that it is mistaken.
The financial position of British firms has been unfortunately misrepresented to the employees, who have been misled into making wage demands that were unrealistic. The result was that jobs vanished because firms were no longer able to compete. If the firms had been more forthcoming and given their employees sufficient information early enough many different attitudes would have been developed. That has to be seen against a siege mentality that has existed in British industry because organised labour through trade unions and the creature that they spawned—the Labour Party in Parliament—produced legislation that was intended to improve matters, but which in fact made industrial relations progressively worse. The truth about productivity, net profits and capital investment was not known to the employees who otherwise would not have been motivated to take part in the political strikes which could and did bring about the end of many jobs. The steel industry is a prime example. It is nonsensical to ask for a wage increase that one's company cannot pay. When that leads to closures and loss of jobs it is no good wringing one's hands.
I believe that the amendment will stimulate and encourage employee participation and involvement in their companies. That is something which I have tried to encourage throughout my adult life, both in my trade union activities and in management. Human resources are the greatest asset of any company or corporation. It is how well those human resources are motivated that determines how the company will compete in the market place.
Too often British management has been hung up on the lack of what it thought was investment, when the real problem was lack of profitability. That is the great problem that we have faced since the end of the war in 1945, and as a result British firms have not been profitable enough. If directors are required to give employees information on matters of concern, it means that employees need to be told the facts of life. If the facts of life had been told to a firm in my constituency—Smedley's canning factory—early enough, I am sure that it would be in existence today, because when it closed the employees produced many workable plans whereby the company could still be a viable concern. I put it no higher than that. Sadly, however, it was too late. The closure was in part due to management not keeping the employees in the picture.
6 pm
It is right that management should consult employees and their representatives on a regular basis. I do not believe, and never have believed, in a doctrinal, laid-down, rigid format to make those people part of the decision-making process of the company—in other words, the board of management. If that formula were right, would not the Co-op be the dynamo of the High Street? Would it not be the dynamo of manufacturing? That is surely what it would be, if that formula worked.
It is essential to study aspects that have failed, whether they be lack of information from management, intransigence by unions, or management structures of the type which have existed in the Co-op for many years, but which have not generated the dynamic drive in manufacturing, marketing, or in the High Street, which would make that organisation comparable with Marks and Spencer, GUS or Boots.
Let us consider carefully the differences. One involves the structure of management and the decision making. I have never supported what I consider is the wooly thinking of industrial relations employee participation and involvement, all wrapped up in what is called industrial democracy. One cannot have that management structure and be effective in the market place. If I believed that, I should support it wholeheartedly, but my experience of looking carefully at the Co-op, the one organisation in the United Kingdom which has participated in this way on a large scale, has convinced me that it is not a road that we should travel—certainly not one that we should use legislation to enforce. That is the great weakness in many of the cases that are put forward in the name of so-called industrial democracy.
A legal framework would be wrong. We should not force industrial democracy in that way. The amendment will force boards of directors to insert in their annual reports a statement on what they have been doing. Anyone who has sat in a boardroom discussing what is to go into the annual report knows that certain things happen only when the annual report is about to be written. That is because the pressure is on whoever is accountable actually to do something. I am in favour of that, and I am in favour of much more involvement. The training machine in a company is one method of employee involvement. That is where two-way exchanges take place, and it needs more encouragement. Participation, not just in employee shares, but in bonus schemes and so on, is also vital.
We must consider how to motivate individuals in every company to operate effectively within that company. There is no textbook on human relations that tells us how to motivate different people in different companies in different parts of the country. Such a textbook does not exist. So we need something flexible, which will encourage those who are accountable—the boards of management and the chairmen—to make people more aware of what is happening in companies, how their companies are performing in the market place, what the future is, and what share they can expect in the future in terms of remuneration, holidays, and so on. If they take more out of a company than the company can stand in the market place, eventually jobs in that company will vanish. Sadly, that is what has happened in British companies for too long.
I welcome the amendment and I believe that it will be welcomed throughout industry.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I, too, welcome the amendment, but with a little less enthusiasm than some of those who have spoken. To a hungry man, it is not really true that half a loaf is better than no bread. One dried crust is better than no bread. That is about the weight of the concession in the amendment. I greet it, therefore, not with three cheers, not with two cheers, but with one muted cheer, which is about what it is worth.
The House will be grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for his clear exposition of the purposes and effect of the amendment and its limitations—its very severe limitations—which he explained most fairly. I was a little sorry—not for myself, but for him—that he felt it necessary, as a prelude to his excellent and enlightening speech, to follow his master's voice and engage in a little vituperation. He is much too good to try to go down in history as the poor man's Norman Tebbit. No doubt he observed that his right hon. Friend got a seat in the Cabinet by substituting abuse for argument and offensiveness for enlightenment. I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman, for his own sake, not to follow that bad example.
I agree with much of what has been said by Conservative Members, and also by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon). The hon. Members for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) and Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) said many things with which I agree and which I have said for a long time. They did drop one or two clangers, but we shall forgive them those for the positive things that they said.
In particular, I agree with the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire. who has had much experience—some of which may be similar to the experience that I had in my years in industry—when he said how self-defeating is the secrecy of management. I 'wish that managers would realise that. I know that the hon. Member for Kidderminster understands that and that he tries to persuade others to understand it, too. Managers should realise that industrial management—the personal involvement of workers in decision making, or whatever one likes to call it—is not merely an instrument of social justice or an extension of political democracy into economics, but is a valuable tool of management. If they realised that, there would be an enormous improvement in the average performance of British industry. I spend half my life as a management consultant trying to get people to understand what a useful tool of management it is and getting managers to understand that the real barrier to increased productivity is the lack of confidence which most workers have in their management. It derives from the fact that they see the disadvantages of management decisions. Often they do not see the advantages, because no one has ever told them.
Therefore, all management decisions are a choice between evils. There is never a clear-cut choice. There are always options and one has to choose the best or the least bad option. No one ever explains to the workers the pros and cons of each option. Therefore, whatever option is chosen by management, the workers condemn it. The workers say "Here is this so-and-so adjectival management. I would not pay it in washers. Why should I bust my guts working harder when it dissipates all the effects of my work doing the wrong things?" The management may not be doing tie wrong things. The workers might agree that it was not if they were told about the considerations that led to the managerial decisions, but they never are.
That is why the companies that resist any invasion of the secrecy of management, to use the words of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, or the companies, to use the words of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, which do the minimum—that is to say, no more than they are statutorily compelled to do—are being not merely reactionary but stupid. They are committing not a crime, but something worse than a crime, which is a mistake. If this—if the Under-Secretary and Lord Rochester will forgive me—piddling little amendment makes a small contribution to the enlightenment of our more backward managers, it will have done some good.
Hon. Members confuse two questions. The first is whether one should seek to lay down a standard pattern of industrial democracy or worker involvement which every firm must follow. The second is whether the whole system should be voluntary or whether there should be some statutory compulsions. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire spoke as if the two were the same. They are not. I can dispose of the first easily. I wrote a pamphlet for my union in 1944 saying that we should not write a blueprint for industrial democracy and expect every firm to follow that precisely, because that is grossly impracticable. One has to ensure that every organisation does things along certain lines of principle and let it work out the details for itself.
There are certain lines of principle. It is no good saying that one will rely for ever on the voluntary arrangement. We have had that arrangement for a long time. The overwhelming majority of firms have done nothing in the direction so well advocated by the hon. Members for Perth and East Perthshire and Kidderminster. Therefore, the voluntary arrangement does not work. One always has the problem of those who, as the hon. Member for Kidderminster said, will do only the minimum. They will not do anything that they are not forced to do. Therefore, one must lay down a statutory framework and then, as the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire said, within that framework let the bosses and blokes in every workplace work out for themselves what is the best way to implement it in the light of what they are making, how they are making it, and so on.
6.15 pm
What should be the framework and the degree of statutory compulsion? First, the provision of information ought to be a compulsory requirement. Otherwise, there will be too many secrecymongers among managers. Secondly, the acceptance of the principle—here I go along strongly with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne)—that any decision within a workplace that affects the welfare of any worker should be negotiable. No unilateral management decision on any matter can affect the welfare of the worker. If his welfare, his wages, his environmental conditions, his prospect of future employment and his esteem in the community—which counts for a lot among workers—will be affected, any decision must be negotiable. If one accepts that principle and the principle that the chap on the other side of the table is entitled to all the information that the other person has on his side of the table to carry out the negotiations, there is no problem about working out the best system within the framework and circumstances of each organisation.
Therefore, without being too rigid, we must face the fact that the voluntary system has not worked. If there is to be a statutory framework, it has to have flexibility. The decisions on details must be left to those concerned.
There have been many references to the argument whether whatever machinery one has in an organisation to fit that organisation should be chosen through the mechanism of the trade unions or by everyone in the factory. On the face of it, there seems to be an overwhelming case for everyone having an equal say. However, one must deal with life as it is and with practicalities.
I worked in a factory as a consultant 40 years ago. There was a works council elected by all the workers in the factory. That was fair enough. However, there were also agreements with a number of trade unions that specified that on wages and working conditions—later health and safety were added—the management had to negotiate with a joint shop stewards' committee. It entered into firm commitments so to do. It was a contractual obligation. The management could discuss with its works council anything that it liked about the factory as long as it did not affect the workers' wages and conditions. Everything that happens in a factory affects workers' wages and conditions. In that factory there was an awful conflict. Anything that the works council agreed to, the shop stewards committee vetoed. There was an impossible situation.
That example is being mirrored everywhere else. One cannot separate the normal contractual arrangements for negotiating with trade unions on wages, working conditions, health and safety and welfare from industrial democracy about everything that does not affect wages, conditions, health and safety and welfare, because everything that does not affect wages, working conditions, welfare and health and safety is nil. That is silly.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Is my hon. Friend aware of the striking confirmation of his view by Lord Rochester when he replied to the debate in the House of Lords on 28 July at column 254 in the Lords Hansard? He said that in his old factory all the employee representatives were, and still are, shop stewards and that they would be engaged as the employee representatives in the consultation exercise.

Mr. Mikardo: That is a man speaking from practical experience, as I have been trying to do. One of the greatest joys of my life was being a management representative on such a joint committee. I disagreed with some of the committee members and resigned in a friendly fashion. I was replaced by another member of management, but three weeks later I was elected as works representative on the same committee. I had a very good time in the following few months.
People, such as Lord Rochester, who have had firsthand experience of industrial problems understand the problem that we are discussing. It is no use being theoretical and using large-sounding phrases. In order to reconcile the conflicting interests, much thought must be given to the problem. To say glibly that democracy demands that everyone should be involved, irrespective of the consequences, will result in a beautifully democractic framework that produces an impotent instrument. Such a result will not help either side of industry.
I end as I began by giving a muted cheer to the clause.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am pleased that the amendment has given the House an opportunity to discuss industrial democracy. I am especially grateful to the hon. Members for Chester-le-Steet (Mr. Radice) and Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) for spelling out their support for industrial democracy, using the term in the same way that some of us use the words "participation" or "involvement".
The terms "democracy" and "industrial democracy" are different and should have different meanings. "Industrial democracy" should mean power sharing in all its aspects. That is how the Opposition believe that the term should apply in industry. . Democracy was introduced to Government over many years and is now accepted at all levels to be the ultimate constraint against dictatorship. It is right that we should have such democracy in Government, but to extend that democracy to all companies, which have a different role to play from that of Government, is unsatisfactory. Decisions about a firm's products, future, marketing and finance may have to be taken rapidly and cannot be subjected to such protracted debates as those with which we are all familiar and which we all know, perhaps to our cost, are part of the work of the House and local government. Therefore, I welcome the amendment for its encouragement of greater involvement by employees in industry. That involvement will increase their commitment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) gave us a clear picture of how the amendment could affect the attitude and, more important, the action of company boards and managements to achieve increased involvement and commitment by the work force.
I welcome the amendment, but I must make the point to Ministers that there is still considerable anxiety among many British managers, especially articulated by the CBI, about the amendment being tacked on to the Bill and requiring such information to be shown in the company report. There is anxiety that the company report is not the right vehicle. We must accept that the provision is tacked on to a Bill which was not designed to achieve greater involvement. That is not to say that I or members of the Conservative Party do not wish to achieve greater involvement, but it requires voluntary commitment by companies. During the next year and beyond, I hope that my party will bend all its energies towards developing policies that will increase participation, but not along industrial democracy lines. We must consider the position as companies respond to the proposals.
Although the amendment is valuable, we must be aware of the likely EEC legislation on the horizon. We must assure British companies that we are keeping a close eye on that legislation so that we do not run the risk of imposing statutory EEC requirements on our present voluntary system of industrial relations and participation. I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister spelt out the Government's anxiety and awareness about the fifth directive and the Vredeling proposals. From the exposure given by the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street to the activities of Conservatives in the European Parliament, we are aware of those dangers and prepared to be robust in ensuring that our concerns are considered properly in the EEC as they will be here in due course.
We must be careful not to build up a Christmas tree of requirements in the annual report. If we do that, the report will lose the impact of its original intention, which is a crucial and important document to shareholders.

Mr. John Grant: The new clause should be welcomed as a modest, but worthwhile, step in a Bill which, for the most part, will do little, if anything, to improve industrial relations, and may well turn out to be largely counterproductive. Contrary to the impression that the Minister seeks to give, it will do nothing to reduce the shameful figure of 3½ million unemployed, which should be the Government's preoccupation.
It was a bit much for the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) to complain about the shortcomings of the clause. The official Opposition did nothing to secure more discussion on industrial democracy at an earlier stage of the Bill, when they had the opportunity to do so. The new clause resulted from an initiative in the House of Lords, particularly that of Lord Rochester and Liberal peers, supported by SDP peers and, to be fair, with substantial Labour support. We should congratulate the Government on supporting that initiative, however belatedly and reluctantly.

Mr. Bulmer: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the new clause received the support of Conservative peers as well?

Mr. Grant: Yes, that is true. I do not know what happened when the Government were defeated. Presumably, the Secretary of State, in that lovable manner that we know so well, patted his Minister on the shoulder, said "Hard luck," swallowed hard and made the best of the problem.

Mr. Waddington: There is no mystery about this. Our spokesman in the House of Lords made it plain that we accepted the verdict of the House and the purpose of the new clause in principle. The hon. Gentleman will agree with the force of the argument that I advanced that, as there was a consultative process on the basis of a Green Paper on trade union immunities, we were rather reluctant to add to the Bill matters that were not canvassed in that consultative process.

Mr. Grant: I take the Minister's point. However, if British industry across the board paid more attention to its most valuable asset—the work force—a clause of this type would not be necessary. Unfortunately, sensible and progressive employers, and I count the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) among them, are not necessarily the majority. There are too many laggards when it comes to taking employees into their confidence and encouraging them to share in decision taking.
The clause does not go far enough. The SDP green paper makes positive proposals for far-reaching changes in providing employees with a share in decision taking in British industry, through right and not favour. However, the document is just a green paper for consultation, and when the consultation is over the SDP will vote on the proposals on the basis on one person, one vote. We shall reach our conclusions, and we shall make our commitment at that stage.
Let us hope that, with the Government's acceptance of the clause, we have at least the seeds of recognition that there has to be accountability and greater openness in British industry. Recognition may come soon. We may have to move because of the EEC and its requirements. The Minister referred to scepticism of the Vredeling proposals and the fifth directive, but I have the strong


impression, which he confirmed today, that the Government are opposed to the proposals at Council of Ministers level. That would be regrettable.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street mentioned what was in our green paper, and I wonder whether he has read it carefully. He should reread it. I will not read from it to the House, because that would not be welcome. However, it envisages the full involvement of the trade unions. Perhaps we can get somewhere with those proposals instead of running into the sort of deadlock that we saw after the Bullock report.
The direction in which the clause points us is relevant to finding lasting solutions to the class-ridden "them and us" attitude that bedevils so much of British industry. In that respect, it is perhaps more relevant than the rest of the Bill put together. It should have been part of a separate, much more substantial Bill about industrial democracy, and we shall certainly want that.
Despite what the Minister says about consultation, I can understand the Government's initial reluctance to support a proposal of this sort, because it conflicts with the general confrontational attitude of the Secretary of State, which he is never tired of showing. It also conflicts with the attitude of the increasingly dominant part of the Labour and trade union movement. I hope that that attitude does not spread to the Opposition Front Bench tonight.
It is an attitude that is growing, and is best personified when one listens to or sees Mr. Arthur "Wedgwood" Scargill preaching his class war claptrap on every second television programme. He is interested not in industrial democracy, but in industrial demagogy. Every time he needs another boost for his earnings, his ego or his votes, Auntie Beeb is always obliging.
Mr. Scargill, and others like him, are the perfect excuse for those on the other side of the industrial argument who are determined to resist all moves towards greater participation and industrial democracy and are too blinkered to see the potentially greater, all-round prosperity that such changes can help to achieve. We have to move away from the depressing and damaging confrontational atmosphere and try to build a genuine industrial partnership.
Legislative proposals by the SDP aim to do that. They recognise the need for flexibility and diversity, and do not impose a blueprint, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo). That is the right approach, and it is better than passing a rigid law that will be flouted in spirit if not in letter. However, we must have a legislative framework, because voluntarism has not provided the impetus or the answer, and the Government have done little, if anything, to promote changes.
The SDP has put preliminary proposals on the table. We are ready to discuss them with anyone, as they are in green paper form. Meanwhile, the clause should be received with all-round approval and, if it is, that will be an achievement.

Mr. Michael Martin: I was interested to hear the Under-Secretary say that a good way of commenting on a company's statement would be to put a notice on the factory notice board. It is obvious from that that the hon. and learned Gentleman has never seen a factory notice board, because if he had he would know that when a notice is pinned on the board in a factory,

somebody comes along with another notice and covers it. Then someone else comes along with another notice and covers the second until the information on the board is no good to the work force.
I was also interested to hear what the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) had to say about profit sharing. I hope that the Government will encourage more companies to give shares in their companies.
I know that one large employer in my constituency, involved in the tobacco industry, has been able, over the years and with consultation with the shop stewards and the work force, to introduce new technology which the work force knew would ultimately mean that people lost their jobs. However, they were courageous enough to allow that machinery to be introduced. It is only right that if people make decisions which improve the prospects of the company but which also mean, at the end of the day, that they or their colleagues could lose their jobs, they should be entitled to a share in that company. Even if they are involved in redundancies, they should have the benefit of security for the courageous decision that they made.
Several hon. Members, including the Under-Secretary, have mentioned the trade union movement in the context of a "them and us" situation. That is far from a true picture. It has been my experience in the West of Scotland that the vast majority of trade unions and those involved as shop stewards get on well with management. There is a first-class relationship. One is always reading in the newspapers about disputes, redundances or something else that puts industrial relations in a bad light. Those experienced in industrial relations know that managements and the trade union movement have gone far in recent years to improve those relations.
I wish that more hon. Members in these debates would try to emphasise the positive developments that are taking place in industry and the trade union movement. If the Under-Secretary is worried about a "them and us" situation, he should perhaps encourage some employers to eliminate problems that create such a situation. There are hourly paid workers who, no matter how long they have been working for a company, are not paid if, due to sickness or some other reason, they have to leave their place of work. They receive no sick pay from the employer.
However, a person in the same company employed under staff conditions can be paid full wages if taken ill or even if possessing a legitimate excuse for leaving the place of work. Six years ago, when I was employed in a large engineering factory, an hourly paid, or what we called a direct, worker who had been employed by the company for 30 years was taken ill with influenza at about three o'clock in the afternoon. His shift ended at 4.30 pm. The employer took from him one and a half hours' wages because he had had to leave his place of work.
That man's own daughter, an 18-year-old typist, who had spent only about a year with the company, was given time off with pay the following week to go with her boyfriend to see a house that they wanted to buy. They were about to be married. That happened because she enjoyed staff conditions. It creates a "them and us" situation which should be removed from industry. In some factories, even today, there is an apartheid situation where a man wearing a boiler suit is not allowed into the staff canteen. That is ridiculous.
The Lords amendment refers to a company with more than 250 workers. We should not deceive ourselves. If a


company with 50 workers told me that it was setting up business in my constituency, I would welcome it with open arms. Every hon. Member, I am sure, would adopt the same attitude. Nowadays, a company with 50 employees can be regarded as large. We should not merely be considering industrial democracy for those fortunate enough to have a job in a company with 250 or more employees. In this day and age, a company with 50, or even 25 employees, is considered to be a large employer. It is a sad feature of the industrial society in which we live.
6.45 pm
The hon. Member for Kidderminster referred to industrial democracy in the public services. This area worries me. The nature of the company or the service means that it is obviously non profit-making. I believe, for instance, that the National Health Service, which is run by the people for the people, should have better industrial relations and that the work force should be involved to a greater extent in the running of its affairs. This is not the case. A great deal of pettiness exists in industrial relations within the National Health Service.
I am not referring to the present dispute. In normal times, within the Health Service, there are many petty problems that could be ironed out if more training were given to those who work in the personnel sections. One has only to examine Health Service cases that go to industrial tribunals to see that many petty problems could be resolved if more expertise existed within the personnel departments. Once the existing problems of the National Health Service are resolved—I hope that this happens quickly—attention should be given to the personnel sections. They have been treated as poor relations. I do not feel that the right type of person has been attracted into personnel which controls the destiny of many employees.

Mr. Renton: I apologise to the House for being absent for half an hour following the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer). I was attending a committee meeting. I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating the work that Lord Rochester carried a step further in the other place and which we see culminating today with the support, I am sure, of both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) has emphasised the need to diminish the "them and us" characteristics of British industry. I agree wholeheartedly. One of the many things from which British industry suffers is the civil war that has continued for too long between management, particularly in the larger companies, and the work force. This small amendment is a step towards diminishing that civil war by establishing better understanding and consultations between management and work force on a permanent basis. That is of prime importance.
I was pleased when my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster asked me to be one of those supporting his Ten-Minute Bill some months ago. I am pleased to see it reach its culmination. It must be clear to all hon. Members, certainly to those who have spoken, that it is the company which consults which prospers. One cannot help thinking, looking back to what happened at British Leyland at Longbridge and at Speke, that if there had been much greater consultation much earlier in those factories, many more jobs would have survived than is now the case in our depleted major industries.
The very message that the company which consults is the one which prospers is emphasised when we consider

shining examples such as United Biscuits, Sainsburys and, I have no doubt, that eponymous company, H. P. Bulmer. I hope that when the requirement to state in the annual report what a company has been doing about employee involvement in the last 12 months is enacted, those who attend the annual general meeting will ask questions about it. I hope that if there is merely a paragraph or two in. the statement, the small shareholder with 100 shares and the institutional fund manager will both rise and ask the chairman why more has not been done about employee involvement. It is very important that the matter should be raised and discussed at the annual general meeting.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice), who is somewhat endearing in the way that he works himself into a lather about a Lords amendment and then says that he intends to support it, has urged in his amendment that a copy of the statement should be circulated as of right to every employee. Annual reports from large companies are full of glossy photographs and many pages of elaborate financial data. I do not think that that is the document—often running to 100 pages—which should be circulated to every employee. I take the point that the statement about what is being done concerning employee involvement should go to every employee, but it would be better to put that information in a separate statement specially produced for the employees of a particular unit within the group,.
I have in mind the report that Wiggins Teape produces as part of BAT Industries, a company that I had the privilege of studying under the aegis of the Industry and Parliamentary Trust. As part of a very large group, it was proud of the report that it produced annually, specifically and only for employees of Wiggins Teape.

Mr. Harold Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that he thought it right that a copy of the statement referred to in their Lordships' amendment should go to every employee. That is entirely consistent with the Bill presented earlier this year by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer). The Opposition amendment is entirely in line with what the hon. Member—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been very generous to the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker).

Mr. Renton: Many of us would like to ask the Minister when the provision is likely to come into operation, and whether employers will be given any guidance in meeting the new legislative requirement.

Mr. Waddington: I think that Lord Rochester's clause was intended to apply to any financial year beginning after 1 January 1983. Our present intention is to use the same date, but there is no need for the date to be in the clause, because the Bill provides for the commencement of various clauses on various dates, as decided by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Renton: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street, in speaking for the Opposition, said that I was one of the Conservative trade unionists present. I am privileged to be president of the large and growing organisation of Conservative trade unionists, and I agree with him that we have published a pamphlet on the question of participation, the conclusion of which was that we needed a code of participative practice.
It is difficult to draw the balance between legislation, code of practice and purely voluntary proposals, particularly when not only the size of company is so enormously different but when the stage that companies have reached along the line of employee involvement is so different. We took the view that a code of practice on the subject would be helpful. I hope that the Government—perhaps when they have been re-elected in 12 or 18 months' time—will consider it to be a suitable subject for the next Parliament.
I fully agree with the hon. Member for Springburn on the importance of employees, whenever possible, holding shares in the business in which they work. I am delighted that under a Conservative Government the number of employee share schemes has grown from a mere handful when we came into office to many hundreds. But there is a gap to which attention should be drawn. When an employee shareholder obtains shares—for example, when his company goes public, as in the case of the recent British Aerospace issue—how can we ensure that he keeps those shares? Often employees apply for shares, they get an offer, and within a year or two many of the shares end up in the hands of an institution. That aspect ought to be studied. It is not just a matter of encouraging employees to obtain shares, but of trying to ensure that they keep them. I am interested to know that, according to the newspapers, that may be one of the features of the Britoil flotation in two or three weeks' time, to which hon. Members on each side of the House are looking forward so keenly. It is one matter which I shall study with interest in the prospectus. I hope that a means will be found not only of helping employees to get shares, but of ensuring that they keep them for a few years. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminister on his initiative in the matter.

Mr. Don Dixon: The new clause is the wrong clause in the wrong Bill, and in my view it is a con. How on earth can people talk about industrial democracy and put a new clause into a Bill which is primarily designed to destroy organised trade unionism in industry? It is an absolute farce.
The Minister was truthful when, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice), he said that the new clause had no powers whatever and was purely consultative. He admitted that there was nothing mandatory about it. Subsection (2)(h)(i) aims at
providing employees systematically with information on matters of concern to them as employees.
Who is to determine which matters are of concern to employees? I well recall, when working in industry, being asked "What is a fair day's work for a fair day's pay?". My answer was "It all depends whether you are giving it or receiving it". That has been the position in industry for a considerable time.
The Minister said that the reason why the clause was accepted in the House of Lords was that there had been time for some consultation. I think he said that 90 letters were sent out. It is rather ironic that of the 19 clauses and the four schedules, the only one to come into operation when the Bill receives Royal Assent will be schedule 1, paragraph 1, which has no provision whatever for consultation. That is the paragraph in the schedule which

gives the Secretary of State for Industry the right to pay out £2 million of taxpayers' money to those who were "free riders" between 1974 and 1980.
I repeat that the amendment is a con and should be rejected, because the whole Bill is anti-trade unionist. The clause is simply a bit of icing that the Government are seeking to put on it.

Question put, That the proposed amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 292.

Division No. 320]
[7 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Evans, John (Newton)


Adams, Allen
Ewing, Harry


Allaun, Frank
Faulds, Andrew


Anderson, Donald
Fitch, Alan


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ford, Ben


Ashton, Joe
Forrester, John


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Foster, Derek


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Foulkes, George


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
George, Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Golding, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Gourlay, Harry


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Graham, Ted


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Hardy, Peter


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Campbell, Ian
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Haynes, Frank


Canavan, Dennis
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.


Carmichael, Neil
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Homewood, William


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S),
Hooley, Frank


Cohen, Stanley
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Coleman, Donald
Hoyle, Douglas


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Huckfield, Les


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Cook, Robin F.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cowans, Harry
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Janner, Hon Greville


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Crowther, Stan
John, Brynmor


Cryer, Bob
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Deakins, Eric
Lambie, David


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamond, James


Dewar, Donald
Leighton, Ronald


Dixon, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan


Dobson, Frank
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Dormand, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Douglas, Dick
Litherland, Robert


Dubs, Alfred
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Dunnett, Jack
McCartney, Hugh


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Eastham, Ken
McKelvey, William


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
McMahon, Andrew


English, Michael
McNamara, Kevin


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McTaggart, Robert






Marks, Kenneth
Short, Mrs Renée


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis


Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Soley, Clive


Maynard, Miss Joan
Spearing, Nigel


Meacher, Michael
Spriggs, Leslie


Mikardo, Ian
Stallard, A. W.


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stoddart, David


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Stott, Roger


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Strang, Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Morton, George
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Newens, Stanley
Tilley, John


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Tinn, James


O'Neill, Martin
Torney, Tom


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Palmer, Arthur
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Park, George
Wardell, Gareth


Parker, John
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Parry, Robert
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Pavitt, Laurie
Watkins, David


Pendry, Tom
Weetch, Ken


Penhaligon, David
Welsh, Michael


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
White, Frank R.


Prescott, John
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Race, Reg
Whitehead, Phillip


Radice, Giles
Whitlock, William


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Wigley, Dafydd


Richardson, Jo
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Robertson, George
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Winnick, David


Rooker, J. W.
Woodall, Alec


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Rowlands, Ted
Wright, Sheila


Ryman, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Sever, John



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Mr. Allen McKay and


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Alexander, Richard
Braine, Sir Bernard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brinton, Tim


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon


Ancram, Michael
Brooke, Hon Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Brotherton, Michael


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Browne, John (Winchester)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Bryan, Sir Paul


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Buck, Antony


Banks, Robert
Budgen, Nick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bulmer, Esmond


Bendall, Vivian
Burden, Sir Frederick


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Butcher, John


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Best, Keith
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n )


Bevan, David Gilroy
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Chapman, Sydney


Blackburn, John
Churchill, W. S.


Blaker, Peter
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Body, Richard
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Cockeram, Eric


Bowden, Andrew
Colvin, Michael





Cope, John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Corrie, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Costain, Sir Albert
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Cranborne, Viscount
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Dorrell, Stephen
King, Rt Hon Tom


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Dover, Denshore
Knight, Mrs Jill


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knox, David


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lamont, Norman


Durant, Tony
Lang, Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Latham, Michael


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawrence, Ivan


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Eggar, Tim
Lee, John


Elliott, Sir William
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Emery, Sir Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Eyre, Reginald
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Loveridge, John


Farr, John
Luce, Richard


Fell, Sir Anthony
Lyell, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McCrindle, Robert


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacGregor, John


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fox, Marcus
McQuarrie, Albert


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Major, John


Fry, Peter
Marland, Paul


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marlow, Antony


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mates, Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mawby, Ray


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Goodlad, Alastair
Mayhew, Patrick


Gorst, John
Mellor, David


Gow, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Gray, Hamish
Miscampbell, Norman


Grieve, Percy
Moate, Roger


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Montgomery, Fergus


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Moore, John


Grist, Ian
Morgan, Geraint


Grylls, Michael
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mudd, David


Hannam, John
Murphy, Christopher


Haselhurst, Alan
Myles, David


Hastings, Stephen
Neale, Gerrard


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Needham, Richard


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Nelson, Anthony


Hawksley, Warren
Neubert, Michael


Hayhoe, Barney
Newton, Tony


Henderson, Barry
Onslow, Cranley


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hicks, Robert
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hill, James
Parris, Matthew


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hooson, Tom
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hordern, Peter
Pawsey, James


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Percival, Sir Ian


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idf'd)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pink, R. Bonner


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pollock, Alexander


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, Barry


Irvine, Bryant Godman
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jessel, Toby
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy






Rathbone, Tim
Stradling Thomas, J.


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tapsell, Peter


Renton, Tim
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Rhodes James, Robert
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thompson, Donald


Rifkind, Malcolm
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Thornton, Malcolm


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Rossi, Hugh
Trippier, David


Rost, Peter
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Royle, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Viggers, Peter


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Wardell, Gareth


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wakeham, John


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walker, B. (Perth )


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Richard
Walters, Dennis


Shersby, Michael
Ward, John


Silvester, Fred
Warren, Kenneth


Sims, Roger
Watson, John


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Dudley
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wheeler, John


Speed, Keith
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Speller, Tony
Whitney, Raymond


Spence, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Squire, Robin
Winterton, Nicholas


Stainton, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Stanbrook, Ivor
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stanley, John



Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Stokes, John
Mr. Carol Mather.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Clause 2

DISMISSAL FOR NON-MEMBERSHIP OF UNION

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 4, line 6, at end insert
(7A) In any case where neither subsection (4) nor subsection (7) has the effect of displacing subsection (3) and the employee—

(a)holds qualifications which are relevant to the employment in question;
(b)is subject to a written code which governs the conduct of those persons who hold those qualifications; and
(c)has—

(i)been expelled from a trade union for refusing to take part in a strike or other industrial action, or
(ii)refused to become, or remain, a member of a trade union,


subsection (3) shall not apply if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for his refusal was, in a case falling within paragraph (c)(i), that his taking the action in question would be in breach of the code, or in a case falling within paragraph (c)(ii), that if he became, or as the case may be remained, a member he would be required to take part in a strike, or other industrial action, which would be in breach of that code.

Mr. Waddington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment makes it unfair to dismiss an employee for non-membership of a union in a closed shop if, first,

he holds qualifications that are relevant to his employment, secondly, he is subject to a written code that governs the conduct of people who hold those qualifications, and, thirdly, he has been expelled or has resigned from or refused to join a union because of a conflict between his code of conduct and industrial action that is called for by his union.
The amendment is drafted so that it bites only where neither the existing protection for conscientious objectors to union membership nor the existing protection for people who are unreasonably expelled from their union is relevant.
The Government introduced the amendment on Report in another place as a result of widespread anxiety that this type of protection should be provided for professional employees who work in a closed shop and who would be in an impossible position if their membership of a trade union involved them in industrial action contrary to their professional code of conduct. Concern was expressed on both sides, particularly by Lord Howie of Troon for the Opposition. There was almost universal welcome for the amendment.
I hope that Opposition Members will not argue that professional employees are not entitled to this type of protection. The spread of the closed shop, which the previous Government encouraged, introduced compulsory union membership in many areas of employment where it had not previously existed. As a result, professional employees, especially in local authorities and nationalised industries, have become increasingly vulnerable to enforced trade union membership, which in turn may place them with an actual or potential conflict of loyalties between a professional code of ethics and their union's instruction to take industrial action.
If, in those circumstances, the professional employee decides to put his code of ethics first by, for example, continuing to provide safety cover if he is an engineer, he must be protected against dismissal if his refusal to strike leads to his being expelled from his union.
7.15 pm
It is no use Opposition Members saying that such a thing cannot happen. It happened to Mr. Partington, an engineer employed by Scottish Gas, who was expelled for not taking part in a strike although he had been told by his employers to provide emergency cover and ensure public safety.
There is a narrower legal point whether the Bill and existing legislation would provide such protection without the amendment. There may be room for argument about that. The view that sufficient protection already exists was not shared by many of those who spoke in another place, including some Opposition noble Lords. They pressed us to put the matter beyond doubt. This is essentially a belt and braces exercise. Such employees may already be protected by the Bill as it is drafted. It may be, therefore, that no one will ever need to use the new clause because he will be able to get all the protection that he needs under the conscience clause in the Bill. Nevertheless, there will be provision in case of need. In these matters, it is far better to be safe than sorry.

Mr. Harold Walker: I shall not invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendment. However, that does not mean that we have no reservations about it. I cannot extend a warm welcome to it, but I shall not ask the House to oppose it.
It is a bit much the Under-Secretary of State saying that it is no use Opposition Members saying that this sort of thing cannot happen. He should wait to hear what we have to say. I am not sure what is meant by a professional employee. This sort of thing could happen to any employee, not merely those with professional qualifiactions.
I understand the point about the possibility—the Minister has cited an example—of a conflict between the requirements imposed on an employee by his trade union and the code of conduct to which he subscribes. I wish that the Government would give equal consideration to the conflict that can also arise between the instructions of an employer and the employee's code of conduct. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not say that that cannot happen. It can, especially to members of the National Union of Journalists who have such a code of conduct.
I have one other reservation about the amendment. I am doubtful about legislation that discriminates between one type of employee and another. As drafted, the amendment could apply to any group of workers who have a code of conduct.
The 1980 Act produced a code of practice on closed shop agreements and arrangements. We are now once again discussing amendments relevant to clause 2, which is one of the important clauses dealing with the closed shop.
I heard last week on the parliamentary grapevine, if I may so put it, that the Department—I do not know whether it was Ministers or officials—had been briefing journalists about possible changes in the code of practice. Indeed, the game was given away at Department of Employment Question Time last Tuesday when a Conservative Back Bencher referred to changes in the code of practice and when they would come before the House.
Apparently there are to be changes. Last week I tabled a question to which I received the following written answer from the Secretary of State today:
Consideration of the Employment Bill makes this an appropriate time to re-examine the code and consider what changes should be made. I therefore intend, in accordance with section 3 of the Employment Act 1980, to consult the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service and then to publish the draft of a revised text as a basis for consultation with all interested parties. Thereafter I shall lay a draft of a revised code before Parliament for approval.
There is, however, interaction between the provisions of the Bill and the provisions of the code of practice. Any changes in the contents of the code will be highly relevant to our discussion of the Lords amendments. We should have been told what changes the Secretary of State had in mind so that we could take account of them in our proceedings. I am happy to give way if the Secretary of State wishes to intervene.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Tebbit): As some of the changes are very recent, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it would have been difficult for us to begin to consult or to conclude our consultations in any sensible way before now. He must know that there was no chance of our being able to do that.

Mr. Walker: Yes, I understand. If the Secretary o0f State says that I have been misled or have misunderstood, I will readily accept that. However, I began by saying that I had heard that journalists had been briefed last week

about the possible changes, and it seems that some Conservative Back Benchers have also been told what the changes may be. Instead of telling certain selected people in smoke-filled rooms in this hole and corner fashion, the Secretary of State, if he has things to tell, should tell them openly in the House. Let him give us some idea of what the changes are so that we may take them into account in framing our attitude to the Lords amendments. Perhaps he will tell us something now about what the changes are, when we may see them and what the timetable may be for his bringing them before the House.

Mr. Waddington: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) knows that a fairly involved procedure must be followed before a new code can come into existence. He will certainly recall that ACAS must be consulted. We must then consider what is proposed by ACAS. There must then be further consultation before final proposals are put before the House by the Secretary of State. Therefore, I cannot help the right hon. Gentleman if he is asking me to tell him how long that process will take, any more than I can possibly tell him what final proposals will be put before the House. They will depend on what comes out of the consultation process. What is absolutely certain, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, is that one cannot even begin the process of consultation with a view to revising the code until one has finalised the Bill. The Bill has to be enacted. One then gets to work on the code. I should have thought that that was fairly plain.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No.3, in page 4, line 6, at end insert—
(7B) For the purposes of subsections (3)(c) and (6)(c), where votes in a ballot may be cast on more than one day, the ballot shall be treated as held on the last of those days.

Mr. Waddington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7.

Mr. Waddington: These are somewhat technical amendments. I hope that I shall not need to detain the House for long.
The amendments concern the closed shop balloting provisions in the Bill and in particular the period of time over which a ballot is held. It has always been the Government's intention that the closed shop ballots provided for in the Bill should not necessarily have to take place in a single day. We have always recognised that in certain industries it may prove very difficult to hold a ballot among employees of larger companies within that time scale. It was brought to the Government's attention, however, that the Bill as drafted might have given rise to doubt as to whether a closed shop ballot held over more than one day would be valid for the purposes of the closed shop balloting clauses in the Bill. That is because the original Bill referred in new sections 58(6)(c) and 58A(3) to the "the day" on which the ballot was held.
The purpose of the amendments is simply to remove any possible doubt in that regard. They provide explicitly that a closed shop ballot may be held over a period longer than one day and they make it clear that, in the case of a ballot held over more than one day, the last day is the day that matters for calculating the five-year period and also


the day that matters with regard to the right of non-union employees in new closed shops to remain non-members under new section 58(6)(c).

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 4, line 25, at end insert—
(10A) Where the reason, or one of the reasons, for the dismissal of an employee was—

(a)his refusal, or proposed refusal, to comply with a requirement (whether or not imposed by his contract of employment or in writing) that, in the event of his failure to become or his ceasing to remain a member of any trade union or of one of a number of particular trade unions, he must make one or more payments; or
(b)his objection, or proposed objection (however expressed), to the operation of a provision (whether or not forming part of his contract of employment or in writing) under which, in the event mentioned in paragraph (a), his employer is entitled to deduct one or more sums from the remuneration payable to him in respect of his employment;
that reason shall be treated as falling within subsections (1)(c)and (3)(b).

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 12.

Mr. Alison: The amendments are related. They are designed to close a possible loophole in the Bill which might have enabled an employer to evade liability for unfair dismissal by arguing that the reason for dismissing an employee in a closed shop situation was not that the employee was not a union member but that he failed to make a payment in lieu of union membership. The amendments also give an employee a remedy if his employer seeks without the employee's consent forcibly to deduct money from the employee's wages or salary as payment in lieu.
A consistent principle lies behind all three amendments. It is that where an employee has a right not to belong to a trade union—this right clearly flows from clauses 2 and 5 and is a fundamental part of the Bill—he should also have what is in a sense a lesser, but a naturally consequential, right not to be forced to make a payment in lieu of trade union membership.
I shall deal briefly with the detail of the three amendments. Amendment No. 4 provides that dismissal for not complying with a requirement to make a payment in lieu or for objecting to an employer deducting such a payment from an employee's pay against the will of the employee is to be regarded as dismissal for non-membership of a union, whether that be fair or unfair. That means that such indirect forms of effective dismissal, as it were, will carry the enhanced compensation which would naturally flow from clause 2 of the Bill as originally drafted.
Amendment No. 8 is consequential upon amendment No. 4. It provides that where an employee is unfairly dismissed for failing to make a payment in lieu of trade union membership the fact that he may have breached a contractual undertaking in failing to comply with a requirement for such payment or has objected to payment being made for him or on his behalf is not to be regarded by an industrial tribunal as conduct making it just and equitable to reduce his award of compensation.
7.30 pm
Amendment No. 12 is also consequential on amendment No. 4 and makes it clear that any compulsory deduction from an employee in lieu of union membership amounts to action short of dismissal taken against him by the employer from which he is protected by the Bill. It is relevant here to note that compulsory deductions might not necessarily be paid to a charity and it could be part of the deal between the union and an employer that payments go to the union in lieu of membership fees.
The charity option or "agency shop" arrangement is not ruled out by the amendments. If a closed shop agreement is endorsed by an 80 per cent. or 85 per cent. majority—whichever is relevant—and an option is offered as an alternative to membership, but is refused in an endorsed closed shop, the dismissal will be fair. It does not in any way interfere with or inhibit a voluntarily agreed or arranged system for paying money to charity.

Mr. Harold Walker: I regret that the House and the Minister will not find me as co-operative and helpful on this matter as I was on the previous issue. The Minister has not advanced any justifications for this significant change in the Bill that left the House to go to the other place. It would have been helpful if we had been told whether the Government had had any consultations with anybody outside Parliament and in industry on this matter. It would also have been helpful if, instead of making generalised justifications, he had given us some specific examples, such as the deals with unions to which he alluded. Examples may exist—though I know of none and have never come across them in my fairly lengthy experience—of unions entering into arrangements where someone could be exempt from closed shop requirements if a contribution were made that eventually found its way back to the union.
The amendment is unwise and unnecessary. We have not argued in favour of closed shops, but have consistently said that where closed shops are operated and where union membership agreements apply in industry, the law and the courts are unsuitable instruments for their regulation. Much the better way is to leave such matters to the common sense, experience and judgment of those who are involved in the day-to-day management of industrial relations. None the less, I have said on many occasions that union membership agreements should be applied in a flexible and tolerant way.
By the amendments the Government are removing the last bit of flexibility that might have remained in the operation and application of closed shops. The provisions go well beyond even those of the 1971 Act, which recognised the free rider problem in the good conduct of industrial relations.
We must recognise that even those hon. Members who have had much direct experience in industrial relations have not done so recently. We have considered it more appropriate to quote the voices of those who have day-to-day involvement in such industrial matters. One of the voices that has been quoted in the house has been that of Mr. Dennis Landau, the chief executive of the Co-operative Wholesale Society. If his association with the Labour Party makes that seem inappropriate, let me say that he was previously the managing director of Cadbury Schweppes Foods Limited.
On 3 February Dennis Landau wrote an article which was headed:
Creating industrial chaos out of order".
That is what he suggested the Bill would do. He referred to the large amount of compensation now available under the Bill and said:
Employers could, of course, merely ignore the non-compliers, but this is simply likely to encourage others and lead to erosion of trade union membership. As in the first situation described, this erosion takes us back to all the dangers of refusal by the trade unionists to work with the 'free riders'.
These are proposals for creating chaos out of order. Closed shop agreements are not merely a soft management option for tidiness and convenience at the expense of personal liberty. the stability obtained benefits employers and employees alike. Trade unions become more effective and the employees have a greater voice in those decisions affecting their working lives. If there are good relations with trade unions, special arrangements can always be made for the very occasional genuine conscientious objector.
That is the voice of Mr. Dennis Landau who is not a trade union leader or even a spokesman of a publicly owned industry but the former managing director of Cadbury Schweppes Foods Limited—a man with enormous experience in such matters. That view also corresponds with my experience as a shop steward and a chairman of shop stewards. Rather than enjoy, at the expense of their fellow workers, the terms and conditions of employment won by the unions, which they object to joining for a variety of reasons, people can understand and accept the obligation on them to put their money in the kitty even if it goes to a nominated charity and not to the trade union.

Mr. Dan Jones: I have been a branch secretary and there is a society of such people. The Minister will put the unfortunate branch secretary in an invidious position. He could accept something gratuitously but it would be illegal. He would not dare to accept it. A situation could arise where a branch secretary could take that money and, over a period of time, not being able to pay it into the union funds, he could put it in his pocket, forget all about it and at some later stage there could be a controversy about its being paid illegally to the union. If the Minister wants the Bill to go through in a legal pattern he should not sponsor that part of the Bill.

Mr. Walker: Doubtless the Minister will have taken account of that point. I am bound to say that when I hear the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary denouncing evil, malicious wicked trade union officers, I often think of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones). He has spent a lifetime as a trade union official, both lay and full time, and one more difficult to reconcile with the description of trade union officials that we hear from Conservative Members I could never imagine. It would do the Minister much good to listen to my hon. Friend, who exudes charm, wit, courtesy and compassion, to see whether he can fit him into his picture of trade union officials.
Unlike Lord Carr, the Secretary of State has not only aligned himself with the free riders, but is dangling before them the golden carrot of the bonus of up to £30,000 for being a non-unionist—those whom the General Council of British Shipping referred to as unscrupulous rapacious seafarers who might seek to take advantage of the bounty that is available.
Perhaps the most important point is that there must be many occasions where there have been long and protracted discussions, perhaps even industrial action, that have been resolved by persuading someone, in the circumstances that

the amendment seeks to deal with, to make a payment to charity. That has become the established and accepted practice, creating stable industrial relations. That may now be put at risk because the provisions will apply not merely to future but to existing cases. Someone who has happily reconciled himself to working with his workmates on the basis that instead of paying money to the union he pays it to charity will now risk the disruption of stable industrial relations. He will have placed before him the incentive of compensation and the fact that the Secretary of State is sanctifying the disruption that he might cause. I ask the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Alison: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate. The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) has put me at a great disadvantage in one sense, because he invoked his hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones). If I ever have to fall, guilty, into the hands of justice, there is no one into whose hands I would rather fall than those of the hon. Member for Burnley.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster asked about the origin of the amendments. They resulted from the receipt by one of the relevant associations of a draft agreement on trade union membership for manual workers, which had been introduced by Nottinghamshire county council to cover new employees taken on from 1 January 1982. The hon. Gentleman might be interested in the details of that draft agreement. It required a new employee either to be a member of one of the specified unions within eight weeks of his employment, or, after eight weeks, to contribute to an agreed charity a sum equivalent to union membership. The agreement laid down that, where the employee complied with neither of those alternatives, the council would have the right to deduct a sum equivalent to union membership from the employee's salary and to pay it direct to a charity. New employees had to sign a form of undertaking, agreeing to accept all the terms of the union membership agreement before their appointment.
The agreement highlighted two possible loopholes in the Bill as originally drafted, to which I have referred. First, there was no certainty that an employee who had been dismissed for failing to pay money to a charity as an alternative to union membership would succeed in a claim that he had been unfairly dismissed because of his non-membership of the union. It could be argued that he had been unfairly dismissed merely for his failure to fulfil his contractual undertaking. That is exactly what we are trying to put right. If he did not succeed, he would at least not be entitled to the enhanced compensation in the Bill and, at worst, his dismissal might have been found fair under the normal unfair dismissal test of reasonableness, and so on.
Secondly, it highlighted the loophole that an employee probably had no legal redress. I agree that the case is hypothetical, but we must always consider the possibilities. It is probably true that an employee would have no legal redress if his employer, under the terms of a Nottinghamshire type agreement, simply deducted money from his salary in lieu of union membership and proceeded to pay it to a union or charity. Therefore, the provision seeks to close that loophole. It is not a draconian measure, but a weaker version of the protection given in clause 2 to the individual who contracted to join a union before joining the firm, subsequently failed to do so, left the union or failed to maintain his membership. From the


point of view of those strongly in favour of the closed shop, the provision closes a loophole but is weaker than that contained in clause 2.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster quoted Mr. Dennis Landau. He no doubt did so because he is one of the very few employers who take that line. However, the CBI is on record as saying that the Bill as a whole has got it just about right. I believe that it is rather more representative of the employers than Mr. Landau. Since introducing the amendment in the other place, we have not received any representations against it from any employer or employers' association.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I have not participated much in the debates on the Government's amorphous Employment Bill. We regard it as an anti-trade union Bill. When it comes to industrial relations, it has an air of unreality about it. I listened carefully to the Minister and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) and I am glad that the House is to divide. It will highlight the fact that the Government have not got the Bill right and are unlikely to do so.
It is all very well for the CBI to reflect on the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) said, we always thought it a bit crackpot—given the background and history of industrial relations—that payment should be made to charity. I remember when a Jehovah's witness was carried by London bus workers, who were otherwise all members of the Transport and General Workers Union. They did not pillory the man or send him to Coventry, but had a deep respect for his religious feelings, just as I respect the Minister's well-known religious feelings.
The workers' representatives do much more than merely talk to employers about wages and general conditions. I have some experience of the railway industry. I was a local shop steward, or local departmental committee representative, as we were called. When a non-unionist from another depot said that he had torn up his card because he had fallen out with the local branch secretary, we made it clear that we wanted him to be one of us. If he had told us that he did not want to be one of us because he did not like us or the local branch secretary, he would have been required to prove it. We had in our hands such matters as the holiday roster and the shift working rosters. We could see to it that his life was a misery because he had refused to be one of us.
If someone did not wish to belong to a union because he had deeply held religious convictions or conscientious objections, and if he said, for example, that he put all his faith in God to provide for him and his family, it would be different. The average, decent British worker who makes up our trade union movement will carry such people. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) has experience of the print industry, which runs a closed shop par excellence. Those involved are a bit scared of the proposed changes. My hon. Friend has great experience and I have heard him tell the Government, time and again, that the Bill will not work. It will not work when the vast majority of workers in any plant or print shop decide that it will not work. That is the essence of the issue.
The Government will push the workers into acting illegally, but when they twig the full meaning of the Tebbit

Bill—as it is known in the trade union movement—they will find all sorts of ingenious ways of getting round its provisions, including the silly business of the conscientious objector. They are fighting for their families and for their standard of living, and they regard such silly, sideline activities, which are not in the guts of the Bill, as ridiculous.
Those workers see the Bill as the thin end of the wedge and as an instrument that seeks to destroy the movement that they have cherished for so many years. They could stop work any time they liked. They could stop work because they did not like someone who was not in their union. They could walk out of the gate, and when the employer complained that they were striking they could deny it and could give various excuses for taking time off. Trade union leaders have plainly spelt out such things.
I have far more respect for the Minister than I have for most Conservative Members, particularly those involved with the Department of Employment. I am sure that the Minister realises in his heart of hearts the truth of my remarks. One can take a horse to water, but one cannot make it drink.
The Bill will help to dig the Government's grave when the general election comes. If the provisions have time to bite before the next general election, and if there are stupid, foolish upheavals in the workshop and in industry as a result of these crazy propsals, we shall see the end of this Government, which is long overdue.

Mr. John Prescott: I intervene on behalf of the seafaring industry in which I have a particular interest, and which is in a special position. The Bill has been through Committee and through the House of Lords, yet no special substantial changes have taken place to mitigate the charge that the Bill is out to destroy the seafaring unions as well as the rest of the trade union movement. What distinguishes the previous Tory Administration from the present Administration is that when the former attempted to outlaw the closed shop principle they found that there were great difficulties with regard to seafarers, as indeed with actors, and that they would need to change their basic approach to the principle of the right not to belong to the union, being equal to the right to belong to a union. I made that point on Second reading and I wish to pursue the matter with regard to seafaring and the amendments to clause 5.
I deal first with compensation. It is no coincidence that the shipowners are extremely concerned about those who may become known as the bounty hunters—those who, because of the peculiarities of the seafaring industry, can seek a considerable amount of money for, all of a sudden, not wishing to belong to a union. I give as an example the seafarer who joins a ship in some other port of the world, many miles from the United Kingdom. There might be considerable difficulties in communicating with that place. That is why we give captains on such ships considerable power to ensure that their orders are obeyed which can have criminal consequences for industrial relations incidents quite different from any other form of industrial set up.
Certain practices pursued in the shipping industry are not pursued with the best of justice in mind. Some shipowners have tried to board vessels by using all types of physical violence. I cite as an example what happened some years ago with the "Globtik Venus". In such cases


people are hired to undermine the traditional work practices on board the ship or to remove a crew that is in dispute with the owners or captain. Such men are hired and flown out to achieve the objectives of certain owners.
Let us consider the argument that leads to the possibility of an award of compensation by a tribunal. A man arrives on a vessel on the other side of the world and decides that he no longer wishes to belong to the union, or, having previously said that he would join the union, decides that he does not like the captain or the convener and for one reason or other does not wish to join the union.
Those considerations would have to be taken into account if action were taken, presumably by the owner, to return the man to the United Kingdom, when a tribunal would consider what compensation he was to receive. The circumstances surrounding the man's decision whether to join a union is material evidence in considering whether the Bill facilitates anti-trade union activity or seeks, as the Government want us to believe, to strengthen trade unions and the right of the individual to decide whether to belong to a union.
The argument about whether a man should be able to decide not to belong to a union because of a conscientious objection has been dealt with in previous legislation and is generally recognised in the trade union movement. It is recognised in the trade union movement that if one does not want to belong to a trade union it is possible, particularly where a closed shop exists, to pay the equivalent amount to charity. In a dispute on the other side of the world where a man decides that he does not want to belong to a union, an owner at least has the opportunity, as a compromise, to ask the man whether he will agree to his union dues being paid to the charity.
That is one way to deal with a difficult position, but in the maritime industry if the man decides, when he joins the ship, that he no longer wishes to join the union, for whatever reason, and the men on the ship refuse to sail the ship because he is a non-unionist—that is a legitimate argument to deploy—such a ship could be held up on the other side of the world. The owner wishes to get his ship to sea and both parties to the dispute are becoming more aggrieved about it and the men refuse to sail.
The crew realise that if that man holds to his position and goes to a tribunal, he is likely to receive compensation of up to £30,000. If a man wants to make a killing he can simply go abroad and agree to join a ship. He does not say that he might have disagreements about union matters, but he arrives abroad and decides to go for the bullseye, which is £30,000 in compensation. He could not care a damn about whether he belongs to the union. He simply wants to get a better reward than he would be likely to get if he served on that ship for three years. That is a consideration and an incentive that might cause a considerable amount of disagreement.
In such circumstances, the captain may order the crew to sail the ship. If the men refuse to obey the captain's order, they face a charge of committing a criminal offence. That is the law that we impose on seamen at their place of work. Those who exercise their right to remain in the union and say to the person who refuses to join that they did not want to work with him are coerced by the law. The man who caused the problem is in for a killing and could make £30,000 in compensation.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman will realise that all the difficulties that he has described can be averted if a

ballot is held when the closed shop is approved. Furthermore, even if it is not approved the tribunals have the right to reduce—indeed, to eliminate entirely—compensation if it is thought that there is a bounty hunter who is simply trying to wreck the system.

Mr. Prescott: I refer the Minister to hearings of tribunals because clearly he has not had a great deal of experience of seeing how tribunals deal with people who are sacked for belonging to a union and people who are sacked for not belonging to a union. The two groups are treated considerably differently both in attitude and in compensation. He can ascertain that fact for himself.
I did not think that the Minister would advance the argument about the ballot, because it does not stand up with regard to seafaring. During the Falklands war our seamen could not receive mail for five weeks. Therefore, when men are all over the world an 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. share of the ballot is impossible to achieve in any time slot, even if one allowed two years.
I shall give the Minister an example of that. One can assume that on matters of wages every seaman will take an interest in whether he takes part in a ballot but we have not been able, even with nearly two-month balloting, to get more than 15 per cent. participation, because most men receive their mail in different parts of the world.
To offer the argument of the ballot as protection against injustice flies in face of the evidence. At least the previous Tory Administration recognised the difficulties of the seafarers and changed the law fundamentally to accommodate them, even though I opposed what they were doing in that sense.
The present Government do not recognise the difficulties, and to use the ballot in those circumstances makes it clear that the Government are determined to break the trade unions wherever they can. One can show it more easily with seafarer 3, but I think that the law, the rules and the attitude of the Government are applicable to all the trade union movement and not just to seafarers.

Mr. Dan Jones: I take the view, and I say it with respect, that the Minister has not been firmly and correctly advised about the Bill. I shall mention only one aspect of the consequences of the Bill. I am referring to the terms of compensation, a subject with which I have dealt for many years.
I repeat my clam—I challenge any member of the Conservative Party to examine it and prove that I am not speaking the truth.—that the Minister has not been correctly advised on the form of the Bill. I regret that I was not in the House when the Bill was presented.
I am talking about workers' compensation. All who examine what is happening in the courts today know that when a case is taken to court it is always supported by a team of established barristers, but no union will take a case—

It being Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 222.

Division No. 321]
[8 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Alton, David


Alexander, Richard
Amery, Rt Hon Julian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Ancram, Michael






Aspinwall, Jack
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Forman, Nigel


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Fox, Marcus


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Freud, Clement


Banks, Robert
Fry, Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Beith, A. J.
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bendall, Vivian
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Best, Keith
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Bevan, David Gilroy
Goodlad, Alastair


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gorst, John


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Gow, Ian


Blackburn, John
Gower, Sir Raymond


Blaker, Peter
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Body, Richard
Gray, Hamish


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grieve, Percy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Bowden, Andrew
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Grist, Ian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grylls, Michael


Brinton, Tim
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Hamilton, Hon A.


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brotherton, Michael
Hannam, John


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Haselhurst, Alan


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hastings, Stephen


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Buck, Antony
Hawksley, Warren


Budgen, Nick
Henderson, Barry


Bulmer, Esmond
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hicks, Robert


Butcher, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hill, James


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n )
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hooson, Tom


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Hordern, Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idf'd)


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Irvine, Bryant Godman


Clegg, Sir Walter
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Cockeram, Eric
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Colvin, Michael
Jessel, Toby


Cope, John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Corrie, John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Costain, Sir Albert
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Cranborne, Viscount
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Crouch, David
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Dickens, Geoffrey
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knight, Mrs Jill


Dover, Denshore
Knox, David


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lamont, Norman


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lang, Ian


Durant, Tony
Latham, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Ivan


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lee, John


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Elliott, Sir William
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Loveridge, John


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Luce, Richard


Farr, John
Lyell, Nicholas


Fell, Sir Anthony
McCrindle, Robert


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Macfarlane, Neil


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacGregor, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.





McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


McQuarrie, Albert
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Major, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Marland, Paul
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Marlow, Antony
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mates, Michael
Shepherd, Richard


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Shersby, Michael


Mawby, Ray
Silvester, Fred


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sims, Roger


Mayhew, Patrick
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mellor, David
Smith, Dudley


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Speed, Keith


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Speller, Tony


Miscampbell, Norman
Spence, John


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Monro, Sir Hector
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Montgomery, Fergus
Squire, Robin


Moore, John
Stainton, Keith


Morgan, Geraint
Stanbrook, Ivor


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Stanley, John


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mudd, David
Stokes, John


Murphy, Christopher
Stradling Thomas, J.


Myles, David
Tapsell, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Needham, Richard
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Thompson, Donald


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thornton, Malcolm


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Parris, Matthew
Trippier, David


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Patten, John (Oxford)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Pattie, Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Pawsey, James
Waddington, David


Penhaligon, David
Wakeham, John


Percival, Sir Ian
Waldegrave, Hon William


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Walker, B. (Perth )


Pink, R. Bonner
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Pollock, Alexander
Waller, Gary


Porter, Barry
Walters, Dennis


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Ward, John


Prior, Rt Hon James
Warren, Kenneth


Proctor, K. Harvey
Watson, John


Rath bone, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Renton, Tim
Wheeler, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Whitney, Raymond


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wickenden, Keith


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wolfson, Mark


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



Rossi, Hugh
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rost, Peter
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Royle, Sir Anthony
Mr. Carol Mather.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Bidwell, Sydney


Adams, Allen
Booth, Rt Hon Albert


Allaun, Frank
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Anderson, Donald
Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)


Ashton, Joe
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Buchan, Norman


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Campbell, Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Canavan, Dennis






Cant, R. B.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cohen, Stanley
Lambie, David


Coleman, Donald
Lamond, James


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Leighton, Ronald


Conlan, Bernard
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cook, Robin F.
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Cowans, Harry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Litherland, Robert


Crowther, Stan
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cryer, Bob
McCartney, Hugh


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Dalyell, Tam
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Davidson, Arthur
McKelvey, William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McMahon, Andrew


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McNamara, Kevin


Deakins, Eric
McTaggart, Robert


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Marks, Kenneth


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Dixon, Donald
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dormand, Jack
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)


Douglas, Dick
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dubs, Alfred
Maxton, John


Duffy, A. E. P.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dunnett, Jack
Meacher, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Mikardo, Ian


Eadie, Alex
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Eastham, Ken
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


English, Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Morton, George


Evans, John (Newton)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Ewing, Harry
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Faulds, Andrew
Newens, Stanley


Field, Frank
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fitch, Alan
O'Neill, Martin


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Ford, Ben
Palmer, Arthur


Forrester, John
Park, George


Foster, Derek
Parker, John


Foulkes, George
Parry, Robert


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Pavitt, Laurie


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Pendry, Tom


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


George, Bruce
Prescott, John


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Race, Reg


Golding, John
Radice, Giles


Gourlay, Harry
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Graham, Ted
Richardson, Jo


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hardy, Peter
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Robertson, George


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rooker, J. W.


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Heffer, Eric S.
Rowlands, Ted


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Ryman, John


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Sever, John


Home Robertson, John
Sheerman, Barry


Homewood, William
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hooley, Frank
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Short, Mrs Renée


Hoyle, Douglas
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Huckfield, Les
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Snape, Peter


Janner, Hon Greville
Soley, Clive


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Spearing, Nigel


John, Brynmor
Spriggs, Leslie


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Stallard, A. W.





Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Welsh, Michael


Stoddart, David
White, Frank R.


Stott, Roger
White, J. (G'gow Pollak)


Strang, Gavin
Whitehead, Phillip


Straw, Jack
Whitlock, William


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wigley, Dafydd


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Thomas, Dafydd (Morioneth)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Tilley, John
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Tinn, James
Winnick, David


Torney, Tom
Woodall, Alec


Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
Woolmer, Kenneth


Varley, Rt Hon Eric 3.
Wright, Sheila


Wardell, Gareth
Young, David (Bolton E)


Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)



Walker, Rt Hon H.(C'caster)
Tellers for the Noes:


Watkins, David
Mr. James Hamilton and


Weetch, Ken
Mr. Frank Haynes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Seven o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Eight o'clock.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 14 agreed to.

New Clause B

PROHIBITION ON UNION RECOGNITION REQUIREMENTS

Lords Amendment No. 15, after clause 11, insert:
B.—(1) Any term or condition of a contract for the supply of goods or services is void in so far as it purports to require arty party to the contract—

(a)to recognise one or more trade unions (whether or not named in the contract) for the purpose of negotiating on behalf of workers, or any class of worker, employed by him; or
(b)to negotiate or consult with, or with any official of, one or more trade unions (whether or not so named).
(2) A person contravenes this subsection if, on the ground of union exclusion, he acts in a manner falling within paragraph (a),, (b) or (c) of section 11(2) of this Act.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, a person acts on the ground of union exclusion if the ground or one of the grounds for his action is that the person against whom it is taken does not, or is not likely to, recognise, negotiate or consult as mentioned in subject: on (1) above.
(4) Subsection (2) above does not create an offence but the obligation to comply with it is a duty owed to each of the following

(a)the person against whom the action is taken; and
(b)any other person who may be adversely affected by the contravention
and any breach of that duty shall be actionable accordingly (subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty).

Mr. Waddington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 16 to 22 and 24.

Mr. Waddington: The new clause and the consequent amendments were tabled by the Government in another place to deal with a practice that came to light after the Bill left this House. It 3ecame clear that a number of local authorities were insisting that constractors must recognise and negotiate with trade unions, or have agreements with trade unions, about procedures before they could even


tender for contracts. It was equally clear that those recognition requirements were simply a means of evading the provisions of clause 11.
The Government believe that trade union recognition should be a matter for each employer and his own employees to decide for themselves. It is not something that should be forced on them as the price of their economic survival and the preservation of their jobs. The principle of trade union recognition is not at issue. What is at issue is whether we should permit trade union recognition to be enforced by commercial pressure and industrial coercion by one employer of another.
The clause will in no way cut across the nationalised industries' statutory obligations to consult recognised trade unions. It will not interfere with employers' statutory obligations to consult trade unions about redundancies or safety matters. No existing statutory obligations of employers are affected by the new clause. We are not talking about the relationship between an employer and his employees. The clause will not even prevent a client from imposing the most stringent and rigorous conditions on his contractors, whether in terms of health and safety, pay and conditions or requirements to inform or consult employees on matters which affect them, provided that those conditions do not amount to a requirement to recognise a trade union.
There is nothing in the clause that forces a client to do business with a firm that he considers has unsafe working practices or may put his employees' safety at risk. He must not use the safety requirements as a device to enforce recognition. The purpose of the clause is specific.
I must return to the local authorities, which are primarily responsible for our debating this matter. After the Bill left the House in May, it came to our attention that a local authority in Scotland—East Kilbride district council—had decided that from 1 October this year all contracts involving work for the council would include a provision requiring all contractors to have signed a recognition and procedural agreement with the appropriate trade union. Opposition Members may be interested to know that the local authority followed the debate in another place so closely that during the Summer Recess it decided to withdraw the requirement, because it realised that the practice was destined to become unlawful.
We can draw two conclusions from that episode. First, legislation can work with surprising swiftness. I doubt whether there are many other examples of a rotten practice passing through all the stages from creation to abolition before the legislation has passed through Parliament. Secondly, it illustrates clearly that the recognition requirement that the local authority wanted to impose on its contractors was no more and no less than an attempt to circumvent the provisions of clause 11.
That clause contains a provision to prevent local authorities and others from requiring contractors to employ trade union labour only. The recognition requirements imposed by some local authorities are not covered by that clause, because they do not necessarily mean that all the contractors' employees must be union members, but their effect is much the same, and, in our view, equally undesirable. First, they force trade union recognition on firms and employees who do not want it. Secondly, they would exclude non-union firms from tendering for contracts. Thirdly, and consequentially, they would

restrict free and fair competition, and therefore raise costs and ultimately destroy jobs. Finally, it is entirely unreasonable to expect ratepayers to pay the price for the prejudice of certain local authorities against non-union firms.
The purpose of the amendment is to make the requirements about recognition and negotiation unlawful and to provide redress for those who suffer from them. Lords amendment No. 15 mirrors the original clause 11. It provides, first, that any requirements about recognition, negotiation or consultation which appear in a contract will be void and unenforceable. Secondly, it makes it unlawful to exclude someone from tendering, or to fail to award him a contract or to terminate a contract with him, on the ground that he does not recognise, negotiate with or consult a trade union or trade union official.
Lords amendments Nos. 16 to 22 are amendments to the original clause 12. They deal with the liability of a trade union in that position. They remove immunity from trade unions that take or threaten industrial action to put pressure on an employer to act in a way that is unlawful under the new clause or to discriminate on the ground of non-recognition.
The other amendments seek to remove immunity when industrial action is taken to interfere with the supply of goods and services because a supplier does not recognise, negotiate with or consult trade unions or trade union officials. I emphasise that all these provisions focus specifically on requirements about union membership and recognition. The voiding of a term in a contract requiring union membership or recognition, for example, does not affect the legal enforceability of other terms in that contract, nor does it invalidate the contract itself. Equally, it remains lawful to make it a condition of a contract that the contractor should observe any other provisions of a collective agreement, as long as the effect of doing so is not to require the use of union labour only or recognition.
We believe that the new clause and the amendments constitute an important addition to the Bill. They may not stop all those practices overnight, but they should act as a deterrent to their spreading and provide a remedy for contractors who suffer from them. As I said, there is some encouraging evidence that their inclusion in the Bill is already acting as a deterrent, even before the Bill becomes law. What has happened at East Kilbride is, in itself, justification for the inclusion of the amendments in the Bill. However, other councils have imposed these requirements on contractors, or intend to do so. I hope that they will follow East Kilbride's lead. I believe that the inclusion of the amendments in the Bill will encourage them to do so.

Mr. Harold Walker: When the Under-Secretary claimed that it was a victory for the Government's legislation that the East Kilbride local authority beat a swift retreat when it saw what the Government were preparing for it, he was really saying that it is a good example of the intimidation of a local authority by the Secretary of State. The Government have intimidated East Kilbride. The Under-Secretary said that the Government are anxious to stop local authorities foisting trade union recognition on firms and employees who do not want it. I wonder how many trade union members in firms where employers will not recognise their unions and will not consult or negotiate with them were consulted about these provisions.
These Lords amendments became known as the East Kilbride amendments. I call them the Aims of Industry amendments. We spent more than 100 hours debating these matters in Committee and on the Floor of the House, and then at one fell swoop Aims of Industry achieved something that far surpassed what Parliament achieved. It has achieved the most important, serious, far-reaching and destructive amendments to the Bill.
Who consulted the employees? According to the Under-Secretary, they do not want trade union recognition foisted on them. I wonder how many mini-Grunwicks there are. There must be many. We quoted one or two in Committee, both on this Bill and on the 1980 Bill. Nevertheless, the Under-Secretary said that they do not want it foisted upon them.
The Under-Secretary talked throughout about local authorities. Does he believe that these provisions are limited to local authorities? The Bill does not say that they are limited to local authorities. The provisions will apply throughout industry and commerce in the private and public sectors, wherever one company awards a contract to another or wherever an individual awards a contract to another individual. He said, as though to comfort us, that the person or firm awarding the contract can require the contractor to comply with almost anything—reasonable rates of pay; anything, so long as it will not strengthen trade unionism. It confirms what we have said time and again—that the Bill is deliberately aimed at undermining the trade union movement. He as good as said so in moving the amendment. He said that in awarding a contract one can require the firm or individual to do anything so long as it does not strengthen the trade union. There we have it.
The Bill, as drafted originally, caused us great concern, and we expressed that concern in votes both in Committee and on Report. The Government have now significantly widened and extended the original provisions. The Under-Secretary quoted them in part. The original Bill said:
Any term or condition of a contract for the supply of goods or services is void in so far as it purports—

(a)to require that the whole, or some parts of, the work done for the purposes of the contract is to be done only by persons who are not members of trade unions or not members of a particular trade union; or
(b)to require that the whole, or some part, of such work is to be done only by persons who are members of trade union or members of a particular union."
They have now extended that voiding to make it unlawful to include in a contract any term that requires the person giving the contract to require those to whom he is giving the contract
to negotiate or consult with, or with any official of, one or more trade unions (whether or not so named).
The Under-Secretary might have reminded the House that both the original words and the amendments carry the provision that relates to those who may complain to the courts that they have been injured by the contravention of this provision. The new clause contains the words
any other person who may be adversely affected by the contravention".
I shall not bore the House by giving examples of all those who may be affected. However, it is important to recognise how sweeping the consequences may be if someone does not comply with either the new or the original or both provisions.
The Under-Secretary sought to reassure us that an employer would still have to comply with any statutory obligation to consult. Parliament has made these

requirements to consult. Section 17 of the Employment Protection Act requires consultation about the disposal of information. Section 99 of the Employment Protect ion Act 1975 imposes a duty on the employer to consult when there is large-scale redundancy. There is also section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Only last year, we had the transfer of undertakings regulations from the EEC. Those statutory obligations have been passed by Parliament, presumably intending that they should be observed, believing that they are in the public interest and that employers should do these things in the interests of good relations and of the workers on whose behalf the consultations take place.
It is surely not unreasonable for the organisation or individuals awarding contracts, knowing that an applicant submitting a contract is not complying with these statutory obligations, to say '`We do not consider that you are a good employer, and until you observe the law and behave consistently with it, we shall withhold our contract." I am told that this is the Governmet of law and order.

Mr. Waddington: Will the right hon. Gentleman point to any part of the amendment that would forbid a contractor from saying to somebody to whom he might give work that he must obey statutory obligations?

Mr. Walker: The new clause states:
Any term or condition of a contract for the supply of goods or services is void in so far as it purports to require any party io the contract—

(a)to recognise one or more trade unions (whether or not named in the contract) for the purpose of negotiating on behalf of workers, or any class of worker, employed by him; or
(b)to negotiate or consult with, or with any official of, one or more trade unions (whether or not so named)."
I have referred to the statutory obligations upon an employer to consult his recognised trade unions. The Minister can interrupt me if I am wrong. I understand that if I as an individual, not a local authority, wish to award a contract for the painting of my house in Doncaster, and there are half a dozen painting firms, each of which suggests that it would like the contract, I can say that I do not want a particular firm because the management does not consult its workers on anything and will not recognize the trade union although it employs 10 employees, nine of whom are members of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians. However, the individual firm can say that Tebbit's law states that if one imposes such a term or condition in giving a contract, that contract is void. Is that right?

Mr. Waddington: I am open to correction, but I pose this question: are there any statutory obligations to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring that apply only when there is a recognised trade union? The answer is that there is only one, which relates to safety representatives. Surely that is the fault of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Walker: I do not follow the Minister's point. Section 99 of the Employment Protection Act 1975 requires the employer to consult the representatives of the independent recognised trade unions in his firm.

Mr. Waddington: We are talking not about whether there is a recognised trade union within a firm, but when one employer is trying to dictate to another employer when there is not a recognised trade union that there should be a recognised trade union.

Mr. Walker: I think that I see the Minister's point. He is either wilfully misunderstanding or is ignorant of my point. When in an establishment a substantial number, the majority, or perhaps all the employees belong to a union but the employer refuses to recognise that union and consequently refuses to comply with his statutory obligations to negotiate or to consult the union, surely it is reasonable for an organisation or an individual to take that into account in deciding whether he should award a contract to that firm. The management of that firm may be told that it is not a good employer, that it acts contrary to the public interest and the express wishes of Parliament, that it does not recognise the trade union to which the majority of the workers belong and which they wish the management to recognise, so it shall not be awarded the contract. Is the Minister telling me that once the person who sought the contract knows why he did not get it he can take legal action? Can he do that?

Mr. Waddington: That is a correct proposition. Why should the employer of one group of workers use commercial pressure to compel another employer to recognise a trade union? A simple issue is involved. The right hon. Gentleman used many emotive phrases. What has it to do with the first employer? What right does he have to exert commercial pressure for union recognition on the other firm?

Mr. Walker: I asked the Minister a simple question. He is now making another speech. I asked him whether I understood the position aright. He has confirmed that I understood it aright and that my proposition was correct.
The Minister is putting forward his opinion. He is pursuing the right policy, in his opinion. He asked why anyone should be able to stipulate the conditions with which a contractor must comply before he can get the contract. However, the Minister said earlier that anyone awarding a contract could insist on anything he liked—for example, with regard to wages—so long as he did not insist on anything in the contract that might help the trade unions. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that it is fine for anything else to be stipulated in the contract, but that it is wrong for the first contractor to say to the firm seeking the contract that the contract will not be awarded to it because it is a bad employer. It is a bad employer because it refuses to recognise the trade union to which all its employees belong and consequently refuses to confer on the employees the statutory rights that such recognition entails.

Mr. Mikardo: I understand the amendment to mean that it will be illegal for a contractor to put out tenders and to stipulate that nobody need apply who does not recognise trade unions, but that it will be legal for a contractor to put out a tender stipulating that he will give preference to firms that do not recognise trade unions. Nothing in this Bill would prevent that from happening.

Mr. Walker: With his enormous experience of such matters and the persuasive skill that he brings to all our debates, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has reminded me of another dimension to this argument. The Under-Secretary keeps trying to persuade the House that only local authorities would be affected by the provisions. My hon. Friend reminds me of an example that has nothing to do with local authorities and often nothing to do with the public

sector—the subcontracting of drawing office work in engineering, shipbuilding and related industries where a fair list is agreed with the technical, administrative and supervising section of the AUEW. The agreement between TASS and the Federation of Engineering Design Companies Ltd. is that work will be subcontracted only to firms that are on the fair list. In order to get on the list, firms must negotiate with TASS. The agreement was debated in the proceedings on the Employment Act 1980, when the then Secretary of State said that he understood the purpose of the agreement and did not wish to disturb it. That agreement would be abolished by these provisions. Similar agreements in other industries would also be affected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) may wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that he can mention the print industry, where there has been a long-established practice of some unions in publishing refusing to handle work that does not carry the trade union stamp.

Mr. Waddington: Shame.

Mr. Walker: The Minister says "Shame". My father worked in the felt hatting industry where such an agreement had been in practice since the nineteenth century. Such agreements ensure that unions are defended against undercutting and exploitation of labour. The Minister's cry of "Shame" gives us a better understanding of why the Government wish to repeal the fair wages resolution. They are obviously in favour of the undercutting of wages and the exploitation of labour.
The Conservative Party wishes to withdraw the fair wages resolution because jobs in the public sector can then be exposed to a range of subcontractors who will offer jobs to the unemployed at cut-rate wages. Doors in the public sector will be thrown open to subcontractors who will prevent workers in most firms from seeking the right to negotiate and consult and to refuse to work with firms that do not recognise trade unions.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Such trade union practices are long enshrined and they are designed to protect workers and their families. In addition to attacking such practices, the Government are now actively promoting breaches of the law. Under these provisions, if an employer refuses to recognise a health and safety at work committee, which must be composed of representatives of trade unions, a contractor cannot now insist that the employer recognises the committee, as is required by the law
The Minister said that it is the Labour Party's fault, but the law is on the statute book. It is enshrined in an Act of Parliament. This legislation means that if an honest employer says that he wishes to recognise a health and safety committee in order to ensure safety standards, he cannot do so because the contract will be rendered void.

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is right to remind us that it is an Act of Parliament passed by the elected representatives of the people. When the Minister sneers that the Labour Party is at fault, he should not overlook the fact that the Queen gives Royal Assent to an Act of Parliament, not to one side of Parliament.

Mr. Waddington: When the right hon. Gentleman accepts what the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)


says, although he knows that it is wrong, he is not carrying out his duty to the House. Nothing in the legislation removes the duty on an employer to allow safety representatives to be appointed at the behest of a recognised trade union. The only issue is whether one employer is entitled to say to another "You had better recognise a trade union so that you can appoint a safety representative under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974". If the hon. Member for Keighley wishes to use such a convoluted argument to justify his case—

Mr. Cryer: It is not a convoluted argument. We wish to have good health and safety at work standards.

Mr. Waddington: —it exposes the naked attempts of the Labour Party to have union labour only clauses in the Bill.

Mr. Walker: The hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand the Bill, he is turning his back on the arguments that he accepted from me a few moments ago, or he is trying to mislead the House about the consequences of the Bill.
During proceedings on the 1980 Act, I referred to Solar Tubes, a firm just outside my constituency but in which many of my constituents worked. The majority of the workers there wished to belong to a trade union, but the employer refused to recognise it. When some of the workers took industrial action to try to persuade their employer to recognise the union, he dismissed them. There were subsequent unfair dismissal proceedings in which the workers were successful. That was a case not of employees having trade unionism foisted upon them by an outside party, as the Minister suggested, but of employees who were members of a trade union and who wished to have the benefits of trade union membership recognised. It is no good the Government saying "We do not object to anyone belonging to a trade union, but we object to an employer recognising the union". One might as well belong to a worthless Christmas club if the employer does not recognise the trade union. As the employer refused to recognise the union, for the purposes of the Act it was not a recognised trade union and it could not insist on the benefits that Parliament intended for it, such as the establishment of a health and safety committee.

Mr. Waddington: There is a simple way round that, and I wonder why it was not accepted by the Labour Government. A non-unionised labour force could appoint health and safety representatives. However, the Labour Government set their face against allowing those rights to any body other than a unionised work force.

Mr. Walker: I am wasting my time in allowing the hon. and learned Gentleman to intervene. I wonder how the Minister became learned. I must refer to him in future as the hon. and "learned" Gentleman. We are talking about the law as it is and as the Government are trying to make it. The Minister is denying workers a way in which they might have secured recognition. A good employer elsewhere, which recognised the union, could have said
Because we believe that you are a bad employer, we shall not give you contracts. You are a bad employer because you do not give your workers their due recognition and you do not comply with the statutory obligations.
8.45 pm
The majority of people would say that it is a perfectly reasonable proposition that bad employers should have

pressure put on them to comply with the obligations imposed by Parliament. However, the Under-Secretary is protecting them, and he is asking Parliament to protect them.

Mr. Waddington: The right hon. Gentleman asked me, and I answered.

Mr. Walker: The hon. and "learned" Gentleman will keep interrupting and making more long speeches which are either contrary to what he said before, or show an abysmal lack of understanding of industrial relations and the law in these matters.
When I was at the Department of Employment I seemed to be engaged interminably in trying to create some order out of the jungle of the construction industry, and that part that dealt with major sites. The hon. Member far Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain) knows a lot about these matters. I am sure that he would agree that over the years there have been bad industrial relations in the part of the construction industry that deals with large sites.
An NEDC team went into this. All kinds of committees were set up and they finally came to the conclusion that the one major contribution to creating order out of this chaos might be a rational agreement for the construction industry. Eventually a national agreement emerged after a great deal of trouble. I was involved in the midwifery process, as was the hon. Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), to whom I pay tribute. The chairman of the committee was Mr. John Morris-Jones. The national agreement seemed to bring hope for good industrial relations to that industry.
It was an employer member of the industry who drew to my attention the fact that one of the conditions in that national agreement read as follows:
The trade unions, signatory to this National Agreement are recognised as the sole negotiating trade unions for the employees covered by this Agreement.
Employers will encourage all their employees covered by this Agreement to be members in good standing with a signatory trade union.
Signatory trade unions will inform employers as to who is their local full time official and any subsequent changes.
Contractors shall recruit (or deploy existing employees) from whatever source, those members of the signatory trade unions whom management considers to be most suitable for the task(s) in question.
That condition becomes irreconcilable with the new requirements in the Lords amendment. All the good work that has gone into trying to improve and create new bases for industrial relations in that industry is put in jeopardy by these provisions inserted at the whim of Aims of Industry. It is motivated by political malice against Labour-controlled local authorities. The Government share that political malice and malevolence towards Labour-controlled authorities. They are pursuing that course heedless of the consequent harm that it will do to industrial relations. That is why I ask the House to kick the amendment back to where it came from.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: As the debate goes on, the record from the Opposition sounds older and older. The right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) seemed to be playing a record dated about 1974 or 1975—those unhappy days when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, as Secretary of State for Employment, was doing what Mr. Jack Jones told him to do. He operated the laws of this country as a recruiting sergeant for the trade union organisation—not for the trade


union members, but for the members of the general council of the TUC. I understand that the right hon. Member for Doncaster is stuck in that groove. If it was not understood before, the right hon. Gentleman made it abundantly clear by his intervention tonight.
The attitude of mind of Labour Members is deeply entrenched in the past in their relationship to trade union leaders rather than to present members of trade unions. I hope that they will try hard to bring themselves up to the present day. They must understand that the proposition that local authorities, or any other contracting authority, should act as recruiting sergeants for trade unions, which cannot recruit members by any other method, is not acceptable to the people. In his one attempt at humour the right hon. Gentleman accused my right hon. Friend of discriminating against East Kilbride. I invite him seriously to consider the important discrimination that would be involved if we made the mistake of following the course that he proposes.
The real importance is that the contracts that are placed should reflect the interests, for example, in the case of the right hon. Gentleman, of the good citizens of Doncaster. If the Doncaster corporation places a contract, it is not the business of the corporation to make sure that a particular employer has recruited enough men in a particular union. The union is, of course, free to try to recruit. It is, however, for the Doncaster corporation—this is the suggestion that I should like the right hon. Member to consider when he returns to the Chamber—to make sure, in the interests of the ratepayers of Doncaster or the taxpayers of this country that it obtains the best value possible for their money. Its duty is not to operate as a recruiter on behalf of a trade union executive.

Mr. Winnick: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it should make no difference to a local authority in deciding where to award a contract if it is known that a firm which, in other circumstances, might qualify has the worst possible conditions for its employees, is notorious for the manner in which it treats its employees and denies them fair conditions? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the good ratepayers and the good citizens who make up the majority on the council should say that such circumstances are not relevant?

Mr. Whitney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. It is the other side of the distorting mirror by which the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster try to confuse the House. The amendment does not say "Thou shall impose those sort of conditions". It is not discriminatory in the sense that the hon. Gentleman suggests. It merely states that it shall not be an absolute condition that the company to which a contract is awarded shall have members of a trade union. The criteria has to be left to the contracting employer, the authority. That is surely right.
I could understand it if the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that we go back to the days of 1974. However, the right hon. Member for Doncaster talked of the public interest. I suggest that the public interest goes far wider. It is the job of the trade union organisation in an enterprise to recruit or not to recruit. It has nothing to do with the authority. I commend the amendment.

Mr. Mikardo: The hon. Gentleman says that this is not discriminatory. It will now be illegal under the Bill for a

contractor asking for tenders to say that it is a condition of acceptance of an offer that the employer must recognise a trade union but perfectly legal for him to say that it is a condition of acceptance of the offer that the employer refuses to recognise a trade union. How can the hon. Gentleman say that this is not discriminatory?

Mr. Whitney: I am glad I gave way because it gives me the opportunity to clarify, for the hon. Gentleman's benefit, the meaning of the clause. Obviously, he has misunderstood it. When he understands it I hope that he will join us in the Lobby in support of the Lords amendment. The discrimination would be to say, as the hon. Gentleman would have it, that the contracts would go only to those firms which had trade union membership. The amendment leaves it open. The firms may have trade union membership; they may not have it. I urge the hon. Gentleman to study the wording carefully and not to let his old-fashioned 1950s prejudices sway his judgment.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I should have thought that it would be possible for the Minister to make it clear whether the supposition of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is correct. I take the interpretation of the amendment to be the one that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) gave—that it would rule out union only labour contracts, as has happened in East Kilbride. If it is suggested that a requirement can be made that only firms which do not recognise unions may have contracts placed with them, I can only say that that is not my interpretation of the clause, but it is possible for the Minister to deal with the question and I hope that he will do so, because the House has the right to ask for his interpretation.
We ought to be concerned about the matter of coercion both ways. I understand that the Government feel it necessary to block what might be an attempt to get round the closed shop, which has been rejected in clauses 11 and 12, by the East Kilbride method. In other words, the Government are trying to plug a loophole which East Kilbride has found under which the local authority can, in effect, enforce the closed shop at one remove. One sees that the Government do not want that loophole to be used in a way that enables authorities to get round the intentions of the House.
In so far as the Government have seen, in East Kilbride and in some other local councils, an attempt to use the local council as a recruiting sergeant for unions, as the hon. Member for Wycombe put it, they have a point. It is a form of coercion to refuse to allow small business men to be on local councils' tender lists when the employees may not wish to join a union. It must be the role of the House to defend the right of individuals to join or to refuse to join a trade union. To that extent, I understand what the Government are trying to do. Many small business men whose employees are not union members ought to be allowed to tender for jobs provided by local councils. Indeed, to some extent our criterion ought to be the interests of the consumer, of the tenant of the council estate, and so forth. The man who does a good job ought to be considered for tenders.

Mr. Cryer: What about cheap textiles?

Mrs. Williams: It should not be decided simply on the basis of whether union or non-union labour is involved. That is why, if the amendment meant what the hon.


Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said it meant, I should be equally opposed to it on that basis. That should not be the criterion. The criterion should be the job that the tenderer does. That should be the basis upon which he gets contracts.

Mr. Michael Martin: On the question of the consumer's rights, when a local authority makes it plain to the electorate that it has a policy of employing only contractors with trade union members, and when that electorate consistently elects Labour-controlled authorities, surely that authority is entitled to say that it is truly representing the people who have elected it. In the city of Glagow, which I served as a councillor, we made no secret of the fact that we had that policy, and the Labour majority increased over the years. Local authorities are testing opinions.

9 pm

Mrs. Williams: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but there is an immediate problem. The electors who elect a Labour council may go on to elect a Conservative Government who are committed to changing the union rule.
Coercion can work both ways. The Minister did not respond to the question of the right hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker) about what happens in certain areas of the private sector. Most of us have in mind the construction industry. In the Green Paper on trade union immunity, direct reference is made to the danger of an undercover attempt to bring about the same result. The issue was considered so serious that the Green Paper did not recommend the sort of proposal in amendment No. 15. It suggested, for example, that there might be attempts to refuse to encourage the fair list and to force it underground—to have unwritten clauses in contracts that might in practice become binding on the contractor. The Government must deal with that.
The Government must also answer another question. In substantial areas in the private sector, again particularly in the construction industry, reasonable conditions of health, safety and work generally do not obtain. In many cases the union is the only safeguard. The Government seriously undermine their case by deciding to rescind the fair wages proposition of 1946 and the accompanying International Labour Organisation resolution No. 94 of 1949. The Minister must reply to the right hon. Member for Doncaster. We have never debated the matter. If the Government argue that fair conditions and wages and fair health and safety precautions can be maintained, even though the protection of the unions is removed, why have they removed the non-union safeguards of the ILO and the resolution passed in 1946? It arouses suspicion when the Government rescind those agreements and resolutions and finally move to rescind the powers of unions to obtain fair conditions.

Mr. Dan Jones: The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) makes the same point that I made earlier. The Secretary of State has not been properly advised in formulating the part of the Bill dealing with accidents in industry, and the Lords have not corrected it. Accidents occur frequently, with calamitous results for the person involved and sometimes for the factory. The person may suffer a serious injustice if he is not legally represented.
I am pleased that the Secretary of State is now in the Chamber. I hope that he will listen carefully. I repeat that he has not been correctly advised.
I have had direct experience over many years of what I am saying. A person may be seriously injured or killed. We in AUEW call in our legal men to inspect the site where the injury took place and if we find that it has resulted from neglect a man could prosecute the company concerned and receive substantial compensation. That is not generally known except in the industry and by progressive trade unions. Last year, we sometimes collected hundreds of thousands of pounds from such employers. That depends entirely upon trade unions being able to perform such legal functions. There should be far more effort in that direction.
That is not always the case. As a result, there is neglect in industry. By and large, employers would not like the backlash of such action. It is obvious that companies that are not subjected to that type of surveillance can produce products more cheaply. Fortunately, the majority of employers are respectable, but venomous employers are being allowed into industry and they will undermine those who play the game and who should want such people taken to task.
We should recognise that possibility in the Bill or abandon the Bill. If we do not, the Government will find that respectable employers wall object. They want such action. Working-class people who are not members of trade unions—there are many—have been exploited. It would be a point in the Government's favour to recognise that. If they do not, they will surely regret it.

Mr. Den Dover: The contracting industry warmly welcomes the banning of union membership only contracts but is wondering whether the Government are going for overkill with regard to the East Kilbride problem. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer two points.
First, is it up to the subcontractor or the main contractor to introduce adherence to fair wages for the national working rule agreement if the client does not specify? Secondly, as union members only carrying out contracts is to be banned, will it be in order for contractors to encourage their workers to join trade unions?

Mr. Greville Janner: I should have thought that the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover), who was apparently speaking for the contracting industry, would be worried about the way in which that industry has been contracting, and about the coercion of that industry by the absence of work for the people in it and by the absence of profit for the people who run it. The real coercion has nothing to do with trade unions and everything to do with the fact that no one can afford to pay for the work that they want done.
Throughout the debate, Conservative Members and the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) have talked about coercion I wonder whether they realise what is going on in industry today. The real coercion has nothing to do with trade unions being entitled to recognition. It has everything to do with money and the fact that small businesses that Conservative Members purport to love are being forced to close in my constituency because big businesses will not pay them the money that they owe. It has much to do with the fact that small businesses are unable to operate because they are


being squeezed out of business by the coercion of those who can afford to cut-rate them out of business when there is no money around and no work for their employees in my constituency or anywhere else. The coercion is on trade unions because their membership is shrinking because there are no jobs. It is the coercion of unemployment that is afflicting this country.
The Bill is irrelevant to anything that matters to the people in my constituency or, I should have thought, anywhere else in the country. It is a contrived and evil irrelevance designed to take people's minds off reality and to rally the troops behind the Secretary of State for Employment, who sits there like the Thinker of old working out ways to rally his forces—or perhaps he is asleep, as he is certainly asleep to the real coercion in the contracting industry and elsewhere.
One Conservative Member spoke of casting one's mind back to the past, so let us do that. In 1981, the Conservative Government brought in a Bill designed, they said, to strengthen the hands of "responsible" trade unions. That is not their purpose now. They have only one object now—to destroy responsible trade unions—and they are pursuing that objective with the ferocity and determination of people who see no other cause behind which to rally their forces.
The Minister referred to emotive language. Emotive language is, of course, what other people say when they wish to make a point. I suppose that it is non-emotive to say that the trade unions are trying to protect their members. That is their job. They are there to look after their members. They are in business to protect their members at a time when—thanks to the Government—that protection has never been more needed.
The Bill is designed to remove even more of the unions' power to protect their members—as though enough had not been removed already because their members are afraid to take industrial action from fear that there will be no jobs to come back to.
The weakness of the trade unions has little to do with past legislation. That is why we have the Bill. It is to do with the fact that there are no jobs in this country. In those circumstances, the clause is designed to give employers the freedom to employ those who do not enter into agreements with unions whereby the employers are required to recognise, negotiate or consult.
In the 1980 Act, the Government removed the rules which required a procedure for recognition. In the Bill they seek to remove the freedom of local authorities to bargain in the way that they see fit. Of course, it is freedom when employers have the right to do or not to do, but coercion when local authorities have that right.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the numerous questions that have been put to the Minister, who appears to wish to reply, is there any chance of a reply to the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has the Floor. It is a matter for him.

Mr. Janner: I am very much obliged. I cannot wait to hear the Minister reply. Before he does so, however, we have some questions to ask him.
First, why at a time of the highest unemployment does the Minister wish to bring in this irrelevancy?
Secondly, does he care whether trade unions continue to exist to protect their members or not?
Thirdly, why does he seek to remove from trade unions the right to be recognised at a time when recognition is more essential than ever?
Fourthly, why does the Minister have the humbug to bring in a Bill which requires consultation when it does not matter, while taking away the right to require consultation when it does?

Mr. Waddington: I shall write to all the hon. Members to whom I am not able to reply now. The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) raised an important point. The fair wages resolution will be debated in due course, but it is a red herring in this debate. Even after the fair wages resolution is revoked, it will still be possible, after the passage of the Bill, for an employer to impose conditions on another contractor as to the wage rates which he should observe. It will still be possible, after the passage of the Bill, for an employer to impose any amount of conditions on another contractor. The only condition that he must not impose is that there must be membership of a trade union or the recognition of one.

It being fifteen minutes past Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put,  That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 234.

Division No. 322]
 [9.15 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Butcher, John


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alton, David
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n )


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Ancram, Michael
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Aspinwall, Jack
Chapman, Sydney


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Churchill, W. S.


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clegg, Sir Walter


Banks, Robert
Cockeram, Eric


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Colvin, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Cope, John


Bendall, Vivian
Corrie, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Costain, Sir Albert


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Cranborne, Viscount


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Crouch, David


Best, Keith
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dorrell, Stephen


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dover, Denshore


Blackburn, John
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Blaker, Peter
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Body, Richard
Durant, Tony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dykes, Hugh


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bowden, Andrew
Eggar, Tim


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Elliott, Sir William


Braine, Sir Bernard
Emery, Sir Peter


Brinton, Tim
Eyre, Reginald


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Brotherton, Michael
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Farr, John


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fell, Sir Anthony


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Buck, Antony
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Budgen, Nick
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bulmer, Esmond
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles






Forman, Nigel
Marlow, Antony


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fox, Marcus
Mates, Michael


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fry, Peter
Mawby, Ray


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mayhew, Patrick


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mellor, David


Glyn, Dr Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Goodlad, Alastair
Miscampbell, Norman


Gorst, John
Moate, Roger


Gow, Ian
Monro, Sir Hector


Gower, Sir Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moore, John


Gray, Hamish
Morgan, Geraint


Grieve, Percy
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mudd, David


Grist, Ian
Murphy, Christopher


Grylls, Michael
Myles, David


Gummer, John Selwyn
Neale, Gerrard


Hamilton, Hon A.
Needham, Richard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael


Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hawksley, Warren
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Hayhoe, Barney
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Henderson, Barry
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hicks, Robert
Parris, Matthew


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Patten, Christopher(Bath)


Hill, James
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hogg, Hon Douglas(Gr'th'm)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Pawsey, James


Hooson, Tom
Penhaligon, David


Hordern, Peter
Percival, Sir Ian


Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pink, R. Bonner


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pollock, Alexander


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, Barry


Irvine, Bryant God man
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Tim


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhodes James, Robert


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


King, Rt Hon Tom
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rifkind, Malcolm


Knox, David
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lamont, Norman
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lang, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Latham, Michael
Rossi, Hugh


Lawrence, Ivan
Rost, Peter


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lee, John
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Loveridge, John
Shepherd, Richard


Luce, Richard
Shersby, Michael


Lyell, Nicholas
Silvester, Fred


McCrindle, Robert
Sims, Roger


McCusker, H.
Skeet, T. H. H.


Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Cyril(Rochdale)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Smith, Dudley


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Speed, Keith


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Speller, Tony


McQuarrie, Albert
Spence, John


Major, John
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)





Squire, Robin
Viggers, Peter


Stainton, Keith
Waddington, David


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, B. (Perth )


Stanley, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D


Steen, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Stevens, Martin
Walters, Dennis


Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Ward, John


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Warren, Kenneth


Stokes, John
Watson, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wells, Bowen


Tapsell, Peter
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wheeler, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Whitney, Raymond


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wickenden, Keith


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Wiggin, Jerry


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Thompson, Donald
Winterton, Nicholas


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Wolfson, Mark


Thornton, Malcolm
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Townend, John(Bridlington)



Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trippier, David
Mr. Anthony Berry and


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Mr. Carol Mather.


Vaughan, Dr Gerard





NOES


Abse, Leo
Douglas, Dick


Adams, Allen
Duffy, A. E. P.


Allaun, Frank
Dunnett, Jack


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Eadie, Alex


Ashton, Joe
Eastham, Ken


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
English, Michael


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Evans, John (Newton)


Bidwell, Sydney
Ewing, Harry


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Faulds, Andrew


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Field, Frank


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Fitch, Alan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ford, Ben


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Forrester, John


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Foulkes, George


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Campbell, Ian
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
George, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cant, R. B.
Golding, John


Carmichael, Neil
Gourlay, Harry


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Graham, Ted


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Cohen, Stanley
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Coleman, Donald
Hardy, Peter


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Conlan, Bernard
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Cook, Robin F.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cowans, Harry
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Heffer, Eric S.


Crowther, Stan
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Cryer, Bob
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Home Robertson, John


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Homewood, William


Dalyell, Tam
Hooley, Frank


Davidson, Arthur
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Hoyle, Douglas


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Huckfield, Les


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Dewar, Donald
Janner, Hon Greville


Dixon, Donald
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Dobson, Frank
John, Brynmor


Dormand, Jack
Johnson, James (Hull West)






Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Robertson, George


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rooker, J. W.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roper, John


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Lambie, David
Ryman, John


Lamond, James
Sandelson, Neville


Leighton, Ronald
Sever, John


Lestor, Miss Joan
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Litherland, Robert
Short, Mrs Renée


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C.(Dulwich)


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Skinner, Dennis


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Snape, Peter


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Soley, Clive


McKelvey, William
Spearing, Nigel


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Spriggs, Leslie


McMahon, Andrew
Stallard, A. W.


McNally, Thomas
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McNamara, Kevin
Stoddart, David


McTaggart, Robert
Stott, Roger


Magee, Bryan
Strang, Gavin


Marks, Kenneth
Straw, Jack


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Maxton, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Tilley, John


Meacher, Michael
Tinn, James


Mikardo, Ian
Torney, Tom


Milian, Rt Hon Bruce
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Wardell, Gareth


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Watkins, David


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Weetch, Ken


Morton, George
Wellbeloved, James


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Welsh, Michael


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
White, Frank R.


Newens, Stanley
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Whitehead, Phillip


O'Neill, Martin
Whitlock, William


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wigley, Dafydd


Palmer, Arthur
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Park, George
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Parker, John
Williams,Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Parry, Robert
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Pavitt, Laurie
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Pendry, Tom
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Winnick, David


Prescott, John
Woodall, Alec


Race, Reg
Woolmer, Kenneth


Radice, Giles
Wright, Sheila


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Richardson, Jo



Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Tellers for the Noes:


Roberts, Ernest(Hackney N)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Mr. Hugh McCartney.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: then proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at fifteen minutes past Nine o'clock.

Lords amendments Nos. 16 to 22 agreed to.

New clause C

AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS 13 AND 30 OF 1974 ACT

Lords amendment: No. 23, after clause 16, insert:
C.—(1) In section 13 of the 1974 Act (acts in contemplation or furtherance of trade disputes) subsection (2) shall cease to have effect.
(2) In section 30 of the 1974 Act (interpretation), in the translation of "tort" as respects Scotland, for the words from "any" to "reparation" there shall be substituted the word "delict".

Mr. Tebbit: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this we may consider Lords amendment No. 39.

Mr. Tebbit: The clause was tabled in another place by the Government as a direct result of a recent judgment in the Scottish courts. The case in question concerned a sit-in by workers at Plessey's Bathgate factory to protest about its closure. Plessey sought an interdict—for the benefit of southerners, that is an injunction—from the courts to have the workers removed. This was refused by both Houses of the Scottish Court of Session on the ground that section 13(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 might provide immunity in such cases.
It is fair to say that the decision caused surprise in legal circles. The tort which it was believed might have been developed in 1906—and that is where section 13(2) of the 1974 Act originates—was the tort of interference with business or trade. In fact, the law has not developed to create the tort of interference with business or trade, but, in so far as that area of law has developed, it has done so in the direction of interference with business or trade by unlawful means for which no immunity has ever existed.
9.30 pm
To develop the concept that an unlawful action—in this case trespass—has immunity if committed in order to interfere with business or trade would seem to point the law in a most dangerous direction. Certainly no one had previously thought that section 13(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 provided any protection to those who occupied factories or trespassed on private property.
More importantly, this decision also caused great concern in Scottish industry. There was an understandable fear that it might act as an encouragement to workers to occupy factories in Scotland and that this in turn could only be a further discouragement to business and investment in Scotland. These fears were increased when the judgment was greeted by the Scottish TUC as a "charter for sit-ins".
We believed that it was essential to move quickly to allay the fears of Scottish industry by nipping in the bud this unwelcome and unexpected extension of the law on immunities. We decided to do it by repealing section 13(2) of the 1974 Act altogether and by amending the definition of "tort" as regards Scotland. These two changes are contained in new clause C.
It has been suggested by some trade union leaders—we may hear the allegation again tonight from the Opposition Benches—that the repeal of section 13(2) is a further major incursion into trade union immunities and that it may put at risk the immunity which currently exists in section 13 for primary industrial action. I say


categorically, therefore, that this is neither the intention nor the effect of the proposed repeal. I do not believe that those who take that view will be able to bring a shred of evidence to support their case.
Section 13(2) has probably been a dead letter since it first appeared in statute in the second half of section 3 of the Trades Disputes Act 1906. It was inserted in 1906 to guard against the possible reversal of the House of Lords' judgment in the 1898 case of Allen v. Flood, and thus the development of the tort of interference with business or trade to which I have referred. In fact, I think that it is now widely accepted that the tort never did develop and that the second part of section 3 of the 1906 Act and its successor, section 13(2) of the 1974 Act, therefore, provided no substantive immunity.
That was certainly the view of the Donovan commission in 1968 when it came to the conclusion:
Strictly speaking…there would seem to be no need today for the second limb of section 3".
That was section 3 of the 1906 Act. However, it concluded that the provision might as well remain on the statute book because it did no harm.
When the second limb of section 3 of the 1906 Act was re-enacted as section 13(2) of the 1974 Act, it was clear that the then Labour Government still regarded it as having no purpose other that to clarify the law. Indeed, they even went so far as to preface the provision with the words
for the avoidance of doubt".
In the light of the Plessey judgment, it appears that rather than avoiding doubt, the continued existence of section 13(2) is now creating doubt and is doing so in a way which greatly widens the scope of immunity. Thus, Donovan's reasons for retaining it are no longer valid.
The repeal of section 13(2), as proposed in subsection (1) of the new clause, is the simplest way to clear up this doubt and specifically to prevent there being any possibility that factory occupations might be found lawful in future. As I have explained, in our view, this will not create any new liability for interference with business, since it is now well established that mere interference with business is not actionable in its own right.
It is worth mentioning that there is a particular difficulty about this case. It is most unlikely that a case of this nature would ever go all the way through the courts to be decided in the House of Lords. Therefore, although these were only, in effect, interim judgments—judgments in interim cases—they do represent a particular problem in Scotland. There must be a clear possibility that would-be investors in Scotland, seeing that that is the way that the law has been interpreted, would prefer not to put new premises at risk by positioning them in Scotland.
Until the Plessey decision it had never been thought that factory occupations were protected by the immunities provided by the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. The amendment simply returns the law to where it was before the judgment. Before the Plessey case, trade unions did not believe that sit-ins were lawful. That is shown by the fact that the TUC conference in 1975 passed a motion calling for
Changes in the law which would enable such occupations to be treated as accepted forms of industrial action with immunity from legal proceedings".
The Labour Government did not respond to that motion with a change in the law. Therefore, I can only conclude that they saw the dangers of legalising sit-ins.
I wonder whether, just for a change, any right hon. and hon. Gentleman or the Opposition Benches will take the same view in Opposition as they did when in Government, and support the amendment.

Mr. Harold Walker: I suffer from one great disadvantage, in that the Secretary of State has a brief and I do not have one. He read it well, but I am not sure that he understood it. I do not say that in any disparaging way, and I shall resist the temptation to ask whether he understands subsection (2) of the amendment, which says
In section 30 of the 1974 Act (interpretation), in the translation of 'tort' as respects Scotland, for the words from 'any' to 'reparation' there shall be substituted the word `delict'.
The right hon. Gentleman wishes to tell me.

Mr. Tebbit: I am only too willing to help the right hon. Gentleman. I am not sure whether any of my Scottish legal hon. Friends were about to do so. In subsection (2) of the new clause, we are reinforcing the repeal of section 13(2) by amending the definition of "tort" in Scotland provided by section 30 of the 1974 Act. The present translation of "tort" into Scottish terminology is:
Any wrongful or negligent act giving rise to liability in reparation.
It is cumbersome and does not fit well into the 1974 Act. Moreover, it is not considered to be ideal since some wrongful acts which would be torts in England and Wales might, under some circumstances, not give rise to liability in reparation—that is the possibility of claiming damages—in Scotland. To use the simple translation of "tort" equals "delict" is, I am advised, a fairly straightforward way round the problem, and none of my advisers can give me any reason as to why that was not done originally.

Mr. Walker: I am no wiser about the meaning of the word "delict".

Mr. Tebbit: In essence, the word "delict" is the Scottish equivalent of "tort". If the right hon. Gentleman substitutes the word "tort" for the word "delict", I ant assured by the lawyers that he will not come to undue harm.

Mr. Walker: I shall accept the right hon. Gentleman's word for once. I accept his word when he says that the changes have the effect that he described. The TUC does not share that view. The Government are being consistent, because when, exceptionally, a court gives a decision in favour of a trade union, the Government cannot wait to get in with the Secretary of State's big hob-nailed boots to crush what is apparently a new-found right for trade unions in Scotland. They had to stamp it out immediately. That is consistent with the Secretary of State's attitude throughout the Bill.
The TUC apparently does not share the Secretary of State's view as to how innocuous the change will be. I said that I had not been in touch with the TUC. I depend on a. report that appeared in the Financial Times of 16 August, from which I shall row quote:
A barely noticed amendment to the 1982 Employment Bill may seriously threaten the right to strike, according to a confidential paper being drawn up by TUC officials.
The paper, which will eventually go before the Employment, Policy and Organisation Committee of the TUC, claims that scrapping of Section 13(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 will undermine a large part of the immunity strikers now enjoy from civil action".
The report continues:


TUC officials say that the scrapping of that section will return the law to the confusion that existed before the 1906 Trades Disputes Act.
The paper says that any tort arising 'only from interference' with trade will now force the Lords to reinterpret two contradictory judgements made over 80 years ago. The Allen v. Flood case of 1897
—which the Secretary of State mentioned—
was favourable to workers' rights to 'interfere with trade,' and the Quinn v. Leathern case
—I seem to have lived with that case for 15 years
of 1901 was unfavourable, it says.
The report goes on to say that the TUC says
At best we will be in a situation of great uncertainty following the removal of the amendment, and at worst it will directly challenge the right to strike".
I do not know whether those views were expressed directly to the Secretary of State. He assured the House that it misunderstands and—to quote him
They will have neither the intention nor the effect that the TUC attribute to them".

Mr. Tebbit: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He puts the matter fairly in this respect. The TUC has not put that view firmly to me. Certainly it has not raised the matter with me as a major issue. On further consideration, the TUC may have reached the same conclusion, as my lawyers did, that the Allen v. Flood case—the one which, having gone to the House of Lords, clearly stood and has stood since 1898—still stands today. No difference will be made in that respect by the repeal.

Mr. Walker: I am grateful—and, no doubt, the TUC will be grateful—to the right hon. Gentleman for his reassurance. I am sure that the TUC will read our proceedings this evening and will be in touch either with me or with the Secretary of State, saying whether it is still worried on the subject.
We are now reaching the end of what for many of us has been a long and tiring road. I repeat that this change reflects one of the criticisms—to put it mildly—that we have made to the Government from the outset of our proceedings, that it illustrates their determination to crush underfoot the trade unions and the rights of trade unionists. Notwithstanding what I said about the reassurance that we have had from the Secretary of State, I shall invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House on this issue.

Mr. George Foulkes: For those of us who happen, fortunately, to be Scots, to have sat through what we have just heard is a little like hearing two teetotallers talking about the various merits of Scotch whisky. They seem to know very little about the subject they are debating, and not much about its effects.
It is a great pity that we have not had, at least, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, if not the Secretary of State for Scotland, here to explain the effects of what the Government are doing on Scotland, because it has serious implications, not just for trade union activity in Scotland but for Scots law. For those of us who are concerned about the methods of this United Kingdom Parliament, where legislation is passed for the whole United Kingdom, affecting two legal systems—that in England and Wales, and that in Scotland—which are totally separate, it provides a good instance of the difficulties that arise.
9.45 pm
Where legislation is United Kingdom legislation and the legal system is totally different in many ways, serious

anomalies arise. What the Government are putting forward does not just have serious and worrying implications in Scotland for the trade unions, which have been noticeably freer, more active and, if Conservative Members will excuse the word, more militant, but has some serious implications for Scots law.
The Secretary of State talked about the law of trespass in Scotland. As I understand trespass in Scotland, with no legal training, it has been more liberal and totally different from that in England. The Secretary of State and the Government are suggesting something that has serious implications for the law of trespass in Scotland. If that is used as a precedent and extended to other areas tremendous difficulties will be created.
It is a great pity that there are no Scots lawyers present. There are some English lawyers, but no Scots ones. I understand that in England when one goes on to other people's property it is clear and unequivocal that one can be guilty of an offence described as trespass.

Mr. Percy Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that in England trespass is not a criminal offence? Will he tell the House what would happen to Mr. Fagan if he went to Holyrood House instead of Buckingham Palace?

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. and learned Gentleman, who is a distinguished English lawyer, has put me right on English law. It is important to have someone here to explain the position in Scots law. My understanding is that the amendment will have serious implications for Scots law.
It is not my responsibility to explain the implications. It is the Government's responsibility. However, the truth is that the Government have been caught with their trousers down.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: That legislation comes next.

Mr. Foulkes: I shall ignore my hon. Friend, who left Scotland—

Mr. John Maxton: Before the Union of Parliaments.

Mr. Foulkes: I think that it was a little after that.
The workers in Plessey took an important action because they felt strongly. They found that they were in the right and that Scots law was on their side. They found that Scots law, which has been traditionally on the side of the worker, is still on the side of the worker. It is regrettable that on this occasion a change should be made by an English majority of Conservative Members and introduced by an English Secretary of State. It is alien to what the people of Scotland want and alien to the wishes of the majority of the elected representatives of Scotland. If we had a Scottish Assembly, as we should, the amendment would not have been introduced today.

Mr. Bill Walker: I have listened to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) on many occasions. It is unfortunate that he should come in at the fag-end of this long debate and, although he has no real knowledge of the subject, try to peddle his favourite comment about the Scottish Assembly.
One reason why we have such provisions in United Kingdom legislation is to ensure that employers and employees are treated equally throughout the country. If equal treatment were not provided, there would be


enormous problems for branches of trade unions and for branches of companies that must operate under different conditions. Enormous problems would be caused both for organised labour, whether trade unions or other forms, and management. Therefore, in passing legislation, we must ensure that Scotland is treated even-handedly.
When the hon. Member for South Ayrshire intervenes in such debates, he should remember that some hon. Members on both sides of the House have been through all the stages of the Bill and have put in many hours. They find it offensive when someone rises simply to peddle his favourite ware.

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the purpose of this stage of the Bill expressly to allow those who were not members of the Committee to take part in the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Walker: I leave the House to judge whether the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has contributed to meaningful and sensible legislation. When we divide on matters of policy, I hope that we do not divide on the fact that whatever Government are in power they will expect United Kingdom legislation to apply to Scotland, England and Wales. Sometimes legislation must differ, for example in Northern Ireland, with its unique problems.
One of the marvellous things about our democratic assembly is that we make allowances. The proposed legislation affects both sides of the employment ence—management and organised labour. It is important that both the workers and management at the Plessey factory in Scotland should be treated uniformly. Such even-handedness is vital if our industrial relations are not to be more chaotic than they have been in the past. I see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) shaking his head.
I recognise that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has his own views. He also believes that the Scottish trade unions—I hope that I quote the hon. Gentleman accurately—have been more militant than the trade unions south of the border. If one has listened to the long debates on this subject, one can understand why many jobs have been lost in so many factories in Scotland. The militancy that has been mentioned is a major reason for the loss of jobs and competitiveness. The hon. Gentleman wishes to divide management and trade unions. This amendment is essential in order that all who work in industrial relations understand the rules of the game.

Mr. Maxton: It had not been my intention to speak until the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) made such an appalling statement. As a Scot who recognises that there is still a need for separate Scottish legislation to be passed in the House, he should realise that he was saying essentially that there should be no separate Scottish legal system. I hope that he will go to the polls in Scotland saying that.

Mr. Walker: I did not say that.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman says that he did not say that. He says that industry should be treated equally. However, Scotland has different contract and company law. Will the hon. Gentleman propose amendments to future legislation that will bring Scottish legislation into line with English law? He said that separate Scottish law must go completely.
The Secretary of State said that if this provision remains in the Bill Scotland will not attract industry. I listened to many radio programmes about a fortnight ago, when his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibility for industry made great claims about how he had managed to attract the Wang Corporation to Scotland against competition from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If that is so, why does he believe that it will be different for another company that wishes to invest in Scotland? We must have protection for Scottish trade unions.

Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) for putting his point briefly. The answer is that we could attract those companies to Scot and because we made it plain that we would bring in this amendment to correct Scottish law. [Interruption.] It was not a barrier to investment, but it would have been had we left the law in such an uncertain state.
The Scottish courts did not declare that the trespass was lawful. They declared that it was unlawful, but said that section 13(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 might provide immunity and that, therefore, they would not grant an interim interdict. The courts left open the question and the law remained uncertain. It would be extremely unlikely that, in the foreseeable future, the process of the law would be taken to the House of Lords in order to remove the uncertainty.
I assure the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes), who is worried about Scottish law, that the law on trespass there is different from English law, but until the Plessey judgment it did not prevent Scottish employers from obtaining interdicts against sit-ins. The new clause does not change Scottish trespass law, but removes the doubt and puts the minds of those concerned at rest.
It is not a trampling underfoot of trade union rights. It is the establishment of certainty that employers will not be subject to unlawful sit-ins in Scotland which have been given immunity by that reading of section 13(2) of the 1974 Act.

Mr. Foulkes: Who does the Minister believe will have their minds put at rest by the legislation?

Mr. Tebbit: Those who invest in and bring jobs to Scotland will have their minds put at rest by the clarification of the law that arises from the repeal of section 13(2).
I shall say nothing more about the contents of the Bill, but I thank all hon. Members who have participated in our debates, although it was difficult to believe always that they showed total goodwill towards the Bill. I am grateful that many of the debates were constructive. I am pleased that the Bill will soon receive Royal Assent and bring great protection to working people in industry around Britain.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 227.

Division No. 323]
[10.00 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)


Alexander, Richard
Atkins, Robert(Preston N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)


Alton, David
Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)


Ancram, Michael
Banks, Robert


Aspinwall, Jack
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony






Beith, A. J.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bendall, Vivian
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Ginsburg, David


Best, Keith
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bevan, David Gilroy
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodhew, Sir Victor


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Goodlad, Alastair


Blackburn, John
Gorst, John


Blaker, Peter
Gow, Ian


Body, Richard
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gray, Hamish


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Grieve, Percy


Bowden, Andrew
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Brinton, Tim
Grist, Ian


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Grylls, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gummer, John Selwyn


Brotherton, Michael
Hamilton, Hon A.


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Hannam, John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Haselhurst, Alan


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hastings, Stephen


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Buck, Antony
Hawksley, Warren


Budgen, Nick
Hayhoe, Barney


Bulmer, Esmond
Henderson, Barry


Burden, Sir Frederick
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Butcher, John
Hicks, Robert


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hill, James


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n )
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Hooson, Tom


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Peter


Churchill, W. S.
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idf'd)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Irvine, Bryant Godman


Cockeram, Eric
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Colvin, Michael
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Cope, John
Jessel, Toby


Corrie, John
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Costain, Sir Albert
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cranborne, Viscount
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Crouch, David
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Kimball, Sir Marcus


Dickens, Geoffrey
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Knight, Mrs Jill


Dover, Denshore
Knox, David


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lamont, Norman


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Lang, Ian


Durant, Tony
Latham, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Ivan


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Lee, John


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Elliott, Sir William
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Emery, Sir Peter
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Loveridge, John


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Luce, Richard


Farr, John
Lyell, Nicholas


Fell, Sir Anthony
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McCrindle, Robert


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacGregor, John


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fox, Marcus
McNally, Thomas


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
McQuarrie, Albert


Fry, Peter
Magee, Bryan





Major, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Marland, Paul
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Marlow, Antony
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Mates, Michael
Shepherd, Richard


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Shersby, Michael


Mawby, Ray
Silvester, Fred


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sims, Roger


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Skeet, T. H. H.


Mayhew, Patrick
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Mellor, David
Smith, Dudley


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Speed, Keith


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Speller, Tony


Miscampbell, Norman
Spence, John


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton ltchen)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Monro, Sir Hector
Squire, Robin


Montgomery, Fergus
Stainton, Keith


Moore, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Morgan, Geraint
Stanley, John


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Steen, Anthony


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Stevens, Martin


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Mudd, David
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Murphy, Christopher
Stokes, John


Myles, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Neale, Gerrard
Tapsell, Peter


Needham, Richard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nelson, Anthony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neubert, Michael
Temple-Morris, Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Thompson, Donald


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Thornton, Malcolm


Parris, Matthew
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Trippier, David


Pattie, Geoffrey
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Pawsey, James
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Penhaligon, David
Viggers, Peter


Percival, Sir Ian
Waddington, David


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wakeham, John


Pink, R. Bonner
Waldegrave, Hon William


Pollock, Alexander
Walker, B. (Perth )


Porter, Barry
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Waller, Gary


Prior, Rt Hon James
Walters, Dennis


Proctor, K. Harvey
Ward, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Warren, Kenneth


Rathbone, Tim
Watson, John


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wellbeloved, James


Renton, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Rhodes James, Robert
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wheeler, John


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Whitney, Raymond


Rifkind, Malcolm
Wickenden, Keith


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wiggin, Jerry


Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Williams,Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Roper, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Rossi, Hugh
Wolfson, Mark


Rost, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Royle, Sir Anthony



Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Sandelson, Neville
Mr. Carol Mather.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)


Adams, Allen
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)


Allaun, Frank
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Anderson, Donald
Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bidwell, Sydney


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Booth, Rt Hon AlBert


Ashton, Joe
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Bray, Dr Jeremy






Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Homewood, William


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Hooley, Frank


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Buchan, Norman
Hoyle, Douglas


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Huckfield, Les


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Janner,


Cant, R. B.
Hon Greville


Carmichael, Neil
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Carter-Jones, Lewis
John, Brynmor


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Cohen, Stanley
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Coleman, Donald
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Conlan, Bernard
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cook, Robin F.
Lambie, David


Cowans, Harry
Lamond, James


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Leighton, Ronald


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Crowther, Stan
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Litherland, Robert


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Davidson, Arthur
McCartney, Hugh


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Deakins, Eric
McKelvey, William


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dewar, Donald
McMahon, Andrew


Dixon, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Dobson, Frank
McTaggart, Robert


Dormand, Jack
Marks, Kenneth


Douglas, Dick
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Dubs, Alfred
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunnett, Jack
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Eadie, Alex
Maxton, John


Eastham, Ken
Maynard, Miss Joan


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Meacher, Michael


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Mikardo, Ian


English, Michael
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Evans, John (Newton)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Ewing, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Faulds, Andrew
Morton, George


Field, Frank
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Fitch, Alan
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Fitt, Gerard
Newens, Stanley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ford, Ben
O'Neill, Martin


Forrester, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foulkes, George
Palmer, Arthur


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Park, George


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Parker, John


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Parry, Robert


George, Bruce
Pavitt, Laurie


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pendry, Tom


Golding, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Gourley, Harry
Prescott, John


Graham, Ted
Race, Reg


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Radice, Giles


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Richardson, Jo


Hardy, Peter
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Robertson, George


Haynes, Frank
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rooker, J. W.


Heffer, Eric S.
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Rowlands, Ted


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'11)
Ryman, John


Home Robertson, John
Sever, John





Sheerman, Barry
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wardell, Gareth


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Short, Mrs Renée
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Watkins, David


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Weetch, Ken


Skinner, Dennis
Welsh, Michael


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
White, Frank R.


Snape, Peter
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Soley, Clive
Whitehead, Phillip


Spearing, Nigel
Whitlock, William


Spriggs, Leslie
Wigley, Dafydd


Stallard, A. W.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S sea W)


Stoddart, David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Stott, Roger
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Strang, Gavin
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Straw, Jack
Winnick, David


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Woodall, Alec


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Wright, Sheila


Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)



Tilley, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Tinn, James
Mr. Derek Foster and


Torney, Tom
Mr. Austin Mitchell. 


Urwin, Rt Hon Tom

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Question put :—

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 227.

Division No. 324]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Budgen, Nick


Alexander, Richard
Bulmer, Esmond


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Burden, Sir Frederick


Alton, David
Butcher, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Ancram, Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n )


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Churchill, W. S.


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Banks, Robert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Beith, A. J.
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bendall, Vivian
Cockeram, Eric


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Colvin, Michael


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Cope, John


Benyon, W.(Buckingham)
Corrie, John


Best, Keith
Costain, Sir Albert


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cranborne, Viscount


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Crouch, David


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Blackburn, John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Blaker, Peter
Dorrell, Stephen


Body, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dover, Denshore


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bowden, Andrew
Dunn, Robert(Dartford)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Durant, Tony


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dykes, Hugh


Brinton, Tim
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Eggar, Tim


Brotherton, Michael
Elliott, Sir William


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Emery, Sir Peter


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Eyre, Reginald


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Bryan, Sir Paul
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Buck, Antony
Farr, John






Fell, Sir Anthony
McCrindle, Robert


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Macfarlane, Neil


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacGregor, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fox, Marcus
McNally, Thomas


Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh
McQuarrie, Albert


Fry, Peter
Magee, Bryan


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Major, John


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marland, Paul


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marlow, Antony


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Ginsburg, David
Mates, Michael


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mawby, Ray


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodhew, Sir Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop,


Goodlad, Alastair
Robin Mayhew, Patrick


Gorst, John
Mellor, David


Gow, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Gray, Hamish
Miscampbell, Norman


Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Moate, Roger


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Monro, Sir Hector


Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus


Grylls, Michael
Moore, John


Gummer, John Selwyn
Morgan, Geraint


Hamilton, Hon A.
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Hastings, Stephen
Murphy, Christopher


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Myles, David


Hawksley, Warren
Neale, Gerrard


Hayhoe, Barney
Needham, Richard


Henderson, Barry
Nelson, Anthony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Neubert, Michael


Hicks, Robert
Newton, Tony


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley


Hill, James
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hooson, Tom
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hordern, Peter
Parris, Matthew


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pawsey, James


Irvine, Bryant Godman
Penhaligon, David


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Percival, Sir Ian


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Jessel, Toby
Pink, R. Bonner


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Pollock, Alexander


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, Barry


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Prior, Rt Hon James


Kimball, Sir Marcus
Proctor, K. Harvey


King, Rt Hon Tom
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rathbone, Tim


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Knox, David
Renton, Tim


Lamont, Norman
Rhodes James, Robert


Lang, Ian
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Latham, Michael
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lee, John
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Roper, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rossi, Hugh


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Rost, Peter


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Loveridge, John
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Luce, Richard
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lyell, Nicholas
Sandelson, Neville


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)





Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Thornton, Malcolm


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Shepherd, Richard
Trippier, David


Shersby, Michael
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Silvester, Fred
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Sims, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Skeet, T. H. H.
Waddington, David


Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Wakeham, John


Smith, Dudley
Waldegrave, Hon William


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walker, B. (Perth )


Speed, Keith
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Speller, Tony
Waller, Gary


Spence, John
Ward, John


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Warren, Kenneth


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Watson, John


Squire, Robin
Wellbeloved, James


Stainton, Keith
Wells, Bowen


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Stanley, John
Wheeler, John


Steen, Anthony
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Stevens, Martin
Whitney, Raymond


Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Wickenden, Keith


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stokes, John
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Williams,Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Tapsell, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wolfson, Mark


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Anthony Berry and


Thompson, Donald
Mr. Carol Mather.


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Dalyell, Tam


Adams, Allen
Davidson, Arthur


Allaun, Frank
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)


Anderson, Donald
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Deakins, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Dewar, Donald


Bagier, Gordon A.T.
Dixon, Donald


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dobson, Frank


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Dormand, Jack


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Douglas, Dick


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Dubs, Alfred


Bidwell, Sydney
Duffy, A. E. P.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dunnett, Jack


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Eadie, Alex


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
English, Michael


Buchan, Norman
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)


Campbell, Ian
Evans, John (Newton)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Ewing, Harry


Canavan, Dennis
Faulds, Andrew


Cant, R. B.
Field, Frank


Carmichael, Neil
Fitch, Alan


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fitt, Gerard


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Ford, Ben


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Forrester, John


Cohen, Stanley
Foster, Derek


Coleman, Donald
Foulkes, George


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Conlan, Bernard
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Cook, Robin F.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Cowans, Harry
George, Bruce


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Golding, John


Crowther, Stan
Gourley, Harry


Cryer, Bob
Graham, Ted


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)






Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Hardy, Peter
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
McKelvey, William


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Haynes, Frank
McMahon, Andrew


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
McNamara, Kevin


Heffer, Eric S.
McTaggart, Robert


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Marks, Kenneth


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Home Robertson, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Homewood, William
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)


Hooley, Frank
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Maxton, John


Hoyle, Douglas
Maynard, Miss Joan


Huckfield, Les
Meacher, Michael


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Janner, Hon Greville
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


John, Brynmor
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Morton, George


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Newens, Stanley


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
O'Neill, Martin


Lambie, David
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Lamond, James
Palmer, Arthur


Leighton, Ronald
Park, George


Lestor, Miss Joan
Parker, John


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Parry, Robert


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pavitt, Laurie


Litherland, Robert
Pendry, Tom


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Prescott, John





Race, Reg
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Radice, Giles
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Richardson, Jo
Tilley, John


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Tinn, James


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Torney, Tom


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Robertson, George
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wardell, Gareth


Rooker, J. W.
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Rowlands, Ted
Watkins, David


Ryman, John
Weetch, Ken


Sever, John
Welsh, Michael


Sheerman, Barry
White, Frank R.


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Whitehead, Phillip


Short, Mrs Renée
Whitlock, William


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Wigley, Dafydd


Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Snape, Peter
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Soley, Clive
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Spearing, Nigel
Winnick, David


Spriggs, Leslie
Woodall, Alec


Stallard, A. W.
Woolmer, Kenneth


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)
Wright, Sheila


Stoddart, David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Stott, Roger



Strang, Gavin
Tellers for the Noes:


Straw, Jack
Mr. Hugh McCartney and


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Mr. Edmund Marshall.


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments nos.24 to 41 agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Homosexual Offences)

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
That the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to bring Northern Ireland law into line with the law in England and Wales where, as in Scotland, where the law differs in some detail, private homosexual acts between consenting adults have not been criminal offences since the passing of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 or, in Scotland, since the passing of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980.
The House will wish me to say a few words about the developments that have led to the presentation of the order. In July 1976, the then the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told the House that he would consider whether to introduce legislation to bring Northern Ireland law more closely into harmony with the laws in other parts of the United Kingdom in areas such as divorce and homosexuality and ask the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights to consider the desirability of doing this. The commission's report, which was published in 1967, recommended that legislation corresponding to the Sexual Offences Act 1967 should be introduced.
In July 1978, a proposal for a draft Homosexual Offences Order was published and an extended consultation period of three months was allowed. The response from the churches, politicians, religious and political organisations, professional bodies, voluntary organisations and individuals was extreme, both for and against changing the law. On one side was the view that homosexual acts were immoral and that the criminal law should prescribe standards of moral behaviour and, on the other, there was the view that adult homosexuals should not be prevented by law from exercising their private right of conscience among themselves. Although it was not possible to say whether either of those extreme views was that of a numerical majority, it was evident that a significant number of people were strongly opposed to reform. In the event, the previous Administration did not proceed with the order; and on taking office this Government decided to take no further action in relation to the draft order at that time.
In 1976, a homosexual living in Northern Ireland complained to the European Commission of Human Rights that the law on homosexual offences in Northern Ireland breached article 8, the right to respect for private life, and article 14, freedom from discrimination, of the European Convention on Human Rights. In 1980, the commission reported its conclusion that this law breached article 8, but that it was unnecessary to examine the case under article 14.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend saying that it is six years since the European Commission ruled against us and before we are legislating?

Mr. Prior: I did not say that. I said that in 1980 the commission reported its conclusion that the law breached article 8 but that it was unnecessary to examine the case under article 14.
The case was then referred to the European Court which came to the same conclusion. On 22 October 1981—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) might be interested to know—the European Court issued its judgment to the effect that the law in Northern Ireland breaches article 8 of the convention. In its judgment the Court showed that it had given due weight to the argument put forward by the United Kingdom that the law in Northern Ireland was justified by the distinctively strong feelings there about the relevance of religious and moral factors to the law on social matters. Nevertheless, taking all that into account, it concluded that the interference with private life entailed by the present law was out of all proportion to the social need claimed for the law.
The United Kingdom has freely signed and ratified that convention and has thereby undertaken under article 53 to abide by the decision of the court in any case to which it is a party. The Government believe that they must stand by their international obligations and abide by the Court's judgment in this case. It was the will of Parliament that the United Kingdom should be a member of the Council of Europe; and our European connections, which Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom shares, require us to comply with the rulings of the Court in Strasbourg, the authority of which we have freely accepted.
Consequently, a further proposal for a draft homosexual offences order was published on 18 March 1982 and the normal consultation period of six weeks was allowed for comments. Representations were received from several bodies. The comments covered, inter alia, the age of consent, the gradation of the revised penalties, the time limit on prosecutions, the burden of proof and the provision that homosexual acts in the Services and between merchant seamen would still be unlawful. There were other comments which were outside the scope of the proposal.
However, in order to rectify the breach of article 8 of the convention the Government are concerned only to bring the law on homosexual offences in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and Wales. Therefore, there is no scope for accepting any of the changes suggested during the consultation period. To do so would either have made the law in Northern Ireland more restrictive than that in England and Wales or taken the law further than that obtaining in England and Wales, which would create new inconsistencies between Northern Ireland on the one hand and England and Wales on the other.

Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. Friend say how he assesses the views of the people of Northern Ireland in the light of the representations that he received? Why is he bringing the order forward now when he has just selected a new Assembly?

Mr. Prior: I could have read out the names of those from whom we received representations. I suspect that the weight of representations was against the change in the law but that that would have been the case in many other circumstances, going back to the Sexual Offences Bill in 1966. I deliberately did not want to detain the House by reading out the names of all the people who had written in.
The order was published in the House some weeks before the Summer Recess. As it was an order that was already in the House for discussion, I felt that it was right


that the House should discuss it and that the Assembly should start by discussing those matters which came afterwards. That is why we are discussing it tonight. It has now been on the Table of the House for a considerable time and I thought that it was the right time to discuss it.

Mr. Foulkes: The Secretary of State rightly says that the Government's action will bring the law in Northern Ireland into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, what consideration have the Government given to the position in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, on whose behalf they have signed the European Convention on Human Rights?

Mr. Prior: I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that answer. If I may say so, I have enough troubles on my plate in dealing with Northern Ireland without getting too involved with the Channel Islands now. However, I shall try to find out the answer, if possible, during the debate.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Northern Ireland Office, and particularly the Secretary of State, have made many comments on the European instructions. If those are the only reason for going ahead with the legislation, why did the right hon. Gentleman bother to have a consultation period?

Mr. Prior: There is a consultation period for every draft order. That is one of the ways in which the people of Northern Ireland have been able to become involved to some extent in legislation. For that reason alone, there would be a consultation period. I do not claim that the fact that article 8 was contravened was the only reason for going ahead, but it was the main reason.
I turn to the main provisions of the order. The main change to the present law is contained in article 3, which provides that a homosexual act, in private, between two consenting men aged 21 or over would cease to be an offence. Paragraph (4) of this article provides that Service men will still be liable to be punished under Service law for homosexual acts.
Paragraph (3) of article 3 provides that a mentally handicapped person cannot validly consent to a homosexual act; and article 4 amends the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1961 to provide protection for men receiving treatment for mental disorder in a hospital, whether as in-patients or out-patients, against homosexual acts by any male member of the hospital staff, and also to mentally disordered persons cared for under guardianship arrangements. Article 5 deals with homosexual acts on merchant ships.
Article 6 sets out revised penalties for those homosexual acts which will still be offences. In particular, it increases the existing penalty for gross indecency by a man over 21 with another man under 21. For buggery with or without consent with a person under 16 years, the maximum penalty will continue to be life imprisonment. For buggery without consent with another man between 16 and 21, the maximum penalty will be 10 years' imprisonment. In the case of consenting parties, the maximum penalty for buggery is qualified by the ages of the persons concerned—it will be five years' imprisonment where the accused is over 21 and the other man is under 21, and it will be two years in all other circumstances. Article 7 deals with procurement and

ensures that it will continue to be an offence to procure a man to commit a homosexual act with a third man, even though the act itself may be legal.
Article 8 provides that it will be illegal for anyone knowingly to live on the earnings of male prostitution
Article 9 covers premises used for lewd homosexual practices and provides that they shall be dealt with as brothels.
Articles 10 to 13 deal with the time limits for prosecutions, the procedure for prosecutions when an under 21-year-old is involved, the mode of trial and arrangements for prosecutions which may be pending. Article 10 will prevent proceedings from being commenced more than a year after the offence, except in the case of an offence with a boy under 16 or in the case of an assault. Article 11 will protect young people from needless exposure to court proceedings.
The Government recognise the very strong feelings held in Northern Ireland on issues pertaining to sexual morality. The Government defended the Northern Ireland law before the European Court in the Dudgeon case and argued that the differences between the law in Northern Ireland and the law in England and Wales were justified. However, the court did not accept these arguments. The Government therefore have to deal with the verdict of the court, which imposes an obligation on the Government to change the law. This Government believe in fulfilling their international obligations. The people of Northern Ireland, whether or not they approve of this particular change, will recognise that since Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom it is bound by the international obligations which apply to the United Kingdom. On that basis, I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Clive Soley: The Secretary of State rightly drew the attention of the House to the strong feelings in Northern Ireland about the order. Any discussion about homosexuality at times raises, not only embarrassment but fear and anger. It is important to remember that that fear and anger is irrational. Often it mirrors society's ambivalent attitude to homosexuality.
As the Secretary of State said, there is no precise definition of a homosexual offence in Northern Ireland. It is worth bearing in mind that words of some existing laws. One reads:
Whosoever shall be convicted of the abominable crime of buggery, committed either with mankind or with any animal, shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude for life.
If we think about that we can understand that society is capable of getting itself into a difficult position because of its ambivalent and contradictory attitude.
Those who have read the newspapers recently will be aware of the abominable crimes in Northern Ireland and here, and yet we do not use words such as "abominable" or "heinous" when speaking of murder, burglary or other crimes which cause disruption and agony to individuals and society.
We are talking not about a tiny minority of the community but about a significant proportion of the population. No society has been able to legislate homosexual behaviour away. We should not try to do so, not least because we cannot.
It is significant and interesting that prior to the gay rights movement there was a tendency to regard homosexuals as people who needed treatment. The forms


of treatment normally given were psychotherapy or psycho-analysis, behaviour therapy or behaviour modification. Many people in the medical and social professions know that one of the problems is that people, called patients, go for treatment because they are afraid of the social consequences of their behaviour, not because the behaviour itself causes them problems. That should make us think about society's contradictory attitude.
Regardless of the cause of homosexuality—and the House will be relieved to learn that I shall not go into detail about the four or five theories involved—one basic moral fact must be kept in mind. It is that homosexuals are people and deserve the same rights and protections as other people. Sometimes we talk about homosexuality as being abnormal behaviour. I am prepared to accept the definition of abnormal behaviour if it is based on statistics. I am prepared to concede that it is a minority behaviour and, therefore statistically less normal than usual. But a significant proportion of the population is involved.
Even such a definition causes difficulties because there is plenty of evidence that homosexual experiences are not rare to the average male at some stage in life, although the extent to which it is taken, of course, varies. If hon. Members wish to pursue that, they need to read not the Kinsey report but the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
The Labour Party welcomes such an updating of the law. I acknowledge that many homosexuals will still feel, with logic on their side, that they are treated differently from heterosexuals. The logic is that the age of consent should be 18. After all, that is the age at which one is considered old enough to fight and die for one's country and deemed to be old enough to vote. It seems logical that they should be brought into line with the position of heterosexuals. The House should bear in mind the fact that the real problem with homosexuality, as with any sexual behaviour, is consent. If the act is done without consent, it is an assault in the same way that rape is an assault.
We should recognise the stand made by Mr. Dudgeon who went to the European Court of Human Rights. That man suffered a great deal of unreasonable persecution and allegations, and was subjected to a great many jokes about him and his behaviour. He and nine or ten others were threatened with prosecution, and were not told for at least 12 months whether that prosecution was going ahead. The prosecution was subsequently withdrawn.
Society often creates problems for the individual. Homosexual behaviour has been present to a considerable degree in almost all societies at all times. Let us not pretend that we are dealing with something new or something that we can in some way stop. It is not healthy to suggest that we can. Those who approach the subject from a moral or religious position have a duty to question their own behaviour and remember and think about the phrase:
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
They also have a duty to respect and defend the principle of tolerance for minorities. Without that tolerance we may all find ourselves part of some minority. By some people's standards we may all find ourselves labelled "abnormal". That is a dangerous and difficult problem for society to face.
We welcome the order. It is a step in the right direction and the Secretary of State can rely upon our support.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It will come as no surprise to the House to learn that I oppose the order. I shall seek to divide the House so that it can put its decision on the record.
The Northern Ireland representatives have been lectured from time to time on the concept of widespread acceptability by all sections of the community. I am in the happy position of being able to make a statement that cannot be challenged by anyone in the House. There is widespread opposition to the order from all sections of the community.
Most Protestant Churches oppose the order and have declared their opposition. The Roman Catholic Church in Northern Ireland has also declared its opposition. The political parties have declared their opposition. More than 70 per cent. plus one are opposed to the order.
There are 26 councils in Northern Ireland, of which 23 are on record as opposing the order. That does not mean that the other three were not opposed to it, but they had a rule that they were not to accept resolutions for discussion from the other councils.
There is widespread opposition in Northern Ireland to the order. We are discussing this order because a European court, over which the House has no jurisdiction or authority, has decided that it is in the best interests of the Northern Ireland people that it should pass through the House. That remote body does not understand the widespread opposition felt in Northern Ireland, and that across the wide divide in Northern Ireland there is unity of opposition. I thought that the House would encourage such unity, because I have heard it said often "Why can you not get together? Why can you not agree on something?" Here is something on which they agree. They agree that this order should be opposed. There is a remote body sitting in Europe, and that remote body will dictate to what we are always told is this sovereign House.

Mr. Percy Grieve: The European Court of Human Rights, which the hon. Gentleman describes as a remote body, is one on which there is a British judge, and it is one which administers a convention to which this country is a party. It has decided that the law prevailing in Northern Ireland in this matter is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom is a party. If the hon. Gentleman adheres to the idea of a United Kingdom, how can he advocate a United Kingdom in which the criminal law is radically different in one part from that which it is in another?

Rev. Ian Paisley: That might be a nice case, but it is not so in fact. This House knows that there is a difference between laws in Scotland and laws in England and Wales. The House also knows that there is a difference between laws governing Northern Ireland and those governing other parts of the United Kingdom. Ministers at the Dispatch Box have told us of their resolve and dedication to protect the statute book of Northern Ireland and to keep it separate.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman wants us to have a uniformity in law, let us have a uniformity in passing those laws. Tonight we have one and a half hours in which to discuss the order. I cannot move an amendment to it. I can only vote against it. The hon. and learned Gentleman is putting the case that there should be uniformity of law. Then there should be uniformity in making those laws, so


that the representatives of Northern Ireland would have the same opportunity and the same rights to move amendments and have the matter discussed properly on the Floor of the House.
What do we find today? We suddenly find, although we were promised that there would be time for a full and proper discussion and that Northern Ireland Members would be able, without any limitation on time, to put their case, that at the end of this Session of Parliament the order comes before us at this late hour to subject us to the dictates of what I still maintain is a remote body and one over which this sovereign Parliament has no say.
I come closer now to the matter that the hon. and learned Gentleman raised. The Government could have taken a different line of approach. First, the Government could have noted the decision. They could have said that, because of the almost total opposition to it in Northern Ireland, they wanted a derogation to the application of our signature to this part of the Court of Human Rights. That course was open to the Government. Why did not the Government take into consideration the widespread opposition of the people of Northern Ireland, and take that course?
Next, the Government could have said, in noting the decision, that they were about to set up an Assembly. According to some quarters, the Assembly may not have much to do, so why not refer this matter to the elected representatives of Northern Ireland in that Assembly? Is not the reason that that Assembly would have had widespread unity in opposing this order? Having heard the strong opposition across the board and also from the elected representatives in an Assembly which was set up by this House, the Government would then have found themselves in more difficulty.
I, as a member of this United Kingdom Parliament, protest against a court sitting in Europe that does not understand Northern Ireland matters. I wonder how many members of that court ever were in Northern Ireland and how many know anything about the situation in Northern Ireland or anything about what is happening there. Why should they take a decision?

Mr. Keith Best: Does the hon. Gentleman entirely reject the European Convention on Human Rights?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not. I have referred cases to it. I make it clear that those cases are on basic rights, which anyone who believes in those rights would accept. However, we are now coming to something to which there is intense opposition in Northern Ireland.
If the nations of Europe go further and say that points must be given for homes for those who enter into a homosexual relationship on marriage, what will the House's attitude be to that? What if they go further and say that sex between children should be legalised? I remind the House that those who advocated the provisions in Northern Ireland in Gay Youth of October 1981 said that there needed to be a revision of the law, and that it was unjust to children that their sexuality should be outlawed. How far do we go down the road that the House is inviting the people of Northern Ireland to go down this evening?
That matter causes grave concern in the hearts and minds of the people of Northern Ireland. Hon. Members can voice their opposition and say, as they are entitled to, that they will vote on the order and compel the people of

Northern Ireland to accept it. Surely the House should be prepared to listen to the reasons why people in Northern Ireland are very concerned about what is happening on this matter.
Another matter needs to be considered by the House. There are some implications in the order. What concerns me in the order is the changing of the dates and the periods when the criminal offence charges can be brought and the court can adjudicate upon them. For most criminal offences the period of limitation dates either from the commission of the offence or from its detection, but under the order, which is significant, the limitation will relate only to the date of the commission of the offence. Therefore, if the offence is only discovered later, the law cannot take any charges against the person who has committed the offence. The House should pay attention to that matter.
If the time limit runs out before the offence is discovered, the order gives no power to the enforcing law officer to take action. Representations on that matter were made to the Secretary of State and the Minister of State. One would have thought that when they were made, the Secretary of State or the Minister of State would have listened to them. They were strong representations for a change in the order on those matters.
Article 6(1)(a) states that the penalty is disproportionate to the nature of the offence and should be set at 10 years. Strong representations were made to the Secretary of State about that. As the threshold age is 21, it is illogical and inconsistent to differentiate between age and sentence. Under article 7, the offence of procurement to commit an act of gross indecency should be retained rather than abolished completely, as proposed in the order.
There are radical changes in this legislation. The 12 months' statutory limitation during which prosecutions can be brought could mean intense difficulty either because of evidential problems or because of a delay in the commission of an offence becoming known. The House is obliged to think carefully about the implications of the order. It is not as simple as it may seem. Those who are opposed to the order have considered it carefully. The Labour Administration first proposed the change in the law. Representations were made to Labour Ministers and to the present Ministers, but there has been no movement towards helping those who oppose the legislation. The Government should have been more flexible, because the European Court of Human Rights did not decree that such matters should be included in the order. The Government added them to the legislation.
When the order is passed, we shall have renewed demands for the lowering of the age of consent to 16 or 14. We shall have the risk of the homosexual corruption of young children. I have already quoted from a newspaper published by the section of the population that is agitating for the order. They say we must now remove the deterrent of the law in regard to sexual practices among children. Let no one believe that this matter is not serious. An across-the-board voice is saying to the House tonight "The people of Northern Ireland do not want this legislation, arid some provisions of the Order need not have been included if the Government were conforming only to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights."
I regret the fact that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State were not prepared to listen to the strong representations made to them by many deputations. Each person in Northern Ireland has a right to his own


conviction and some people there believe that homosexuality is not only a defiance of human law but a defiance of divine law. [Hon. Members: "Oh"!] I make no apology. I shall maintain in the House, no matter what point of view shouts, the right to say what I think needs to be said.
The things that have been brought into the order that need not have been are matters that the Secretary of State, when he heard these strong representations, could have given in to. Instead of that, he was prepared to go on and present this matter as it has been presented.
The House should know the strong feelings in Northern Ireland, and that those feelings do not come from one particular party or one particular religion, but from across the whole strata of Northern Ireland society. The one thing that binds society together is the family unit. Those who say that the family unit is ignorance, are welcome to that sort of belief. I believe that the family unit is the basic cement of society. This order, legalising homosexuality, attacks the very cement of society. It weakens not only the moral but the social fibre of society. Those of us who believe in the sanctity of the home and in the strength and moral power of the home must voice their opposition to the order.
I should like to speak at length, but I shall not. Perhaps if I talked the debate out the people of Northern Ireland would be better served, but I do not propose to do that. All hon. Members wish to put their point of view. It is unfair of the House to take up this controversial subject and tell the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland that they have an hour and a half to discuss it. If we include the Front Bench speeches, how much time is there left for the people of Northern Ireland to have their say on this order?
I am very pleased to see so many hon. Members in the House. It is a pity that they were not here when we were discussing the Assembly.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It has been the almost invariable practice since we have legislated for Northern Ireland by Order in Council that when an Order in Council embodies matters that are controversial and are felt to be of deep importance for the people to whom they apply that steps are taken by the House to extend the time available to debate beyond the minimum hour and a half. However short our time tonight, a protest should be registered at the fact that the requests for an extension in this case were not acceded to by the Government.
It was not worth the Government's while, simply for convenience on a day when the business was under guillotine or to take a decision on this order tonight rather than two or three weeks ahead, to depart from the practice that has been observed hitherto, when the House remembers that it is legislating for Northern Ireland without any other opportunities to consider the contents of the order or its application to those to whom it is to be applied.
Those of us who vote against the order tonight will do so not only on behalf of those whom we represent in the Province, but on behalf of the House and Parliament, to which this order, as I shall show, constitutes an affront.
It has been the practice of the House to legislate on matters of morality, on matters of morals and on matters

that are commonly regarded as matters of conscience, not upon Government motion, under the Whip which accompanies that which the Government put forward as the Government, but upon a free vote on the motion of a Private Member. It was upon the motion of a Private Member that the law on this subject in England and Wales was made in 1967, and that in 1980 the law made in 1967 for England and Wales was extended to Scotland. In each case it was not a Government motion. It was a free vote of the House. If it saves time later, I will say that in each case I voted for a change in the law. It has been thought right by this House down the years to deal with matters of this kind in that way and not to impose upon hon. Members the sanction of supporting a Government or opposing a Government.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: There is no Whip imposed on this side of the House on this matter tonight.

Mr. Powell: I am obliged for that information. We are dealing, however, with something put forward on the authority of the Government as a Government motion. It cannot be denied that this is contrary to our normal practice in dealing with matters of this kind. It is not the manner in which the law was made in this respect either for England and Wales or for Scotland.
It has also been normal within the United Kingdom for differences in law between the various parts of the United Kingdom in exactly this type of matter to be accepted. On marital laws, there are still differences—they have been retained to the most recent times—between the law in England and Wales, the law in Scotland and the law in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Grieve: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the existence of something as a major criminal offence is very different from matrimonal law? Does he not also consider it intolerable that within the United Kingdom a serious criminal offence in one part should be lawful in other parts?

Mr. Powell: I can only say that in matters of morality involving criminality it has been normal for us to accept, and even to cherish, differences in the law between the different parts of the United Kingdom. It would therefore be intolerable and unthinkable for the Government to seek by order, to impose upon one part of the kingdom law which, for the remainder of the kingdom, had been made not by Government motion but by a free vote of the House, with deliberate regard to the differing points of view held on the subject in different parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the vote in 1980, when the system applying in England and Wales was extended to Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman, who attended the debate, will be aware that one of the main reasons for the change was that the law in Scotland had become a dead letter, as indeed, it is in Ulster, where it is not enforced by the Government. It cannot serve the interests of the House to keep on the statute book a law which no Government are prepared to enforce.

Mr. Powell: I was dealing with the manner in which it has hitherto been thought right for the law to be made for different parts of the United Kingdom on this sort of subject and, indeed, on this particular subject. I take the point that uniformity could have been a consideration that


weighed with hon. Members taking part in those debates. If the Government had proceeded of their own motion to impose upon Northern Ireland as Government policy what in the rest of the kingdom had been decided only by free vote on the motion of a Private Member, that would have been an intolerable breach of the custom of the House, but that is not what we are confronted with tonight.
Tonight the Government are acting under compulsion. It is true that they had some variety of compliance with that compulsion, but they have decided to comply with it by applying to Northern Ireland exactly the same law as holds good in England and Wales—[Interruption.] and Scotland now. They are acting under an external compulsion which has been accepted by this country in acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights. The result is that the Government find themselves not merely in breach of our own manner of legislation on these subjects but applying law which is strongly resented by a large body of opinion in the part of the kingdom to which it is to apply because they hold themselves to be under an external obligation to do so.
I believe that in the long run the House will find it impracticable and unacceptable to acknowledge that there can be an external court or legislature which can impose upon Parliament and upon the House of Commons a particular form of legislation. It is the more unacceptable because of the manner in which the obligation is formulated under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court.
We are not in the position of having acceded to a convention which laid down precise rules so that in advance we could have understood what it was that we were committing ourselves to accept. On the contrary, the human rights as defined in the convention are defined in such general terms that it is judge-made law that is being treated as mandatory upon this country.
The requirement which the Government plead for bringing in the Order in Council depends upon the interpretation of the right to the respect for privacy, from which only by a remote judicial reasoning could an obligation to introduce this legislation be argued. That is not the manner in which the House legislates.
This is not the manner in which law is made in this country. Law is made in this country by the utmost precision being sought by Parliament, and applied by judicial interpretation, carefully guarded, which remains within those limits. When we place ourselves under the obligation of the European Convention, all that is cast aside and our law stands to be made by a judicial interpretation, on the widest and most philosophical grounds, of provisions which are drawn in vague and general terms. So not only is the House legislating tonight under duress; the House is legislating to impose in this country judge-made law of a kind which it would not for a moment accept outside the scope of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Mr. Best: rose—
It is quite likely that the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) wishes to put to me the same question that he put to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) .

Mr. Best: indicated dissent.

Mr. Powell: I gather that that is not the case, but I will answer whatever new question he has.

Mr. Best: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for gibing way, especially as he anticipated a question that I was not intending to ask. The right hon. Gentleman makes the fair point that it is traditional in this House that matters of conscience are dealt with by way of matters brought forward by Private Members, and he makes the point that the present issue is brought before the House by an Order in Council from the Government. Perhaps he will inform the House how it would be possible for a Private Member to bring forward an Order in Council, bearing in mind that that is the way in which legislation presently pertains to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. A Private Member's Bill applying to Northern Ireland could be brought into the House and pass through all its stages. There is no particular difficulty in that. The provision could have been introduced by a Private Member's Bill equally with an Order in Council. That is the proper way in which it should and would have been done, if at al1, if we were not acting under duress.
That brings me back to the question that the hon. Member for Anglesey put to the hon. Member for Antrim, North. He asked whether he accepted the European Convention on Human Rights and the obligation to give of the right of access to the European Court to obtain enforceable judgments in this country. My answer is an unqualified "No". I do not believe that it is workable or tolerable that we should assign to an external body, even though there is a minority representation of the United Kingdom upon it, the power to legislate for this country—the power to enforce obligations upon the Government of this country to legislate or to alter the law.
We made a great mistake—

Mr. Best: It is the present situation.

Mr. Powell: Of course it is the present situation. I am not denying that. I shall vote against the present situation. Sooner or later the House will come to its senses and understand that it is intended to be, and can only function properly as, the supreme legislature of this country and not the recipient of orders from elsewhere as to what laws it should or should not make.
It is therefore in the person, as it were, of Northern Ireland that the House is experiencing the consequence of having abandoned its rights and responsibilities to the external interpretation of a vague and generalised document—the European Convention on Human Rights—so that tonight it is the House as a whole that is affronted, as well as one part of the United Kingdom. It happens to be that small minority to which that duress is being applied by the House tonight. But the ignominy of legislating at the behest of others applies to the House as a whole. The time will come when we shall see the necessity—as in other contexts, so in that of the Convention on Human Rights—of resuming the untrammelled sovereignty of legislation of the House of Commons and of Parliament.

Mr. Matthew Parris: I wish to speak only briefly. and not on those constitutional issues on which other hon. Members are more competent to speak than I.
The subject of the order is adult male homosexuality in the last major part of this Kingdom where it is still


outlawed. Seldom does so small a measure, debated in so short a time and brought at such a late hour, touch so deeply the lives of so many thousands of people in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that homosexuality is morally wrong or necessarily harmful, although I accept the fact that many hon. Members think of it as an affliction. But surely we can all agree that it is an impractical interference in the privacy of adult life to brand such people as criminals, as we still do in Northern Ireland.
Hon. Members luckier than I may find that personal conviction gives wings to their argument—the more powerfully they feel about an issue, the more powerfully they can speak. Unfortunately, that is not so in my case. I can happily argue the toss, but where I feel as deeply, strongly and personally as I do on this issue, argument altogether fails me. I support the measure with all my heart.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Like my colleagues from Northern Ireland, I oppose the order. In answer to questions earlier, the Secretary of State said that it is being introduced now because, among other reasons, it was published a few months ago. The draft recreation order was also published a few months ago. The Northern Ireland Assembly is to be allowed to debate it. I should have thought that this matter is as important an issue to debate in that Assembly as the recreation order.
I am not satisfied with the explanations that have been given for bringing such an order before the House at this time of night.
I appreciate the fact that some hon. Members will profoundly disagree with me. Nevertheless, I and many other people are not happy that the House should change the laws that govern us at the behest of a European Court when we believe that that is contrary to the Judaeo-Christian ethic on which they have hitherto been based. We will suffer accordingly.
I share some of the views of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley). I disagree with those who glibly speak of the problem as a sickness and often, in so doing, imply that there is no cure. We have only to remember that in the city port of Corinth, whence derives the name Corinthian, for those so listed, an obvious cure was provided. I refer the House to that lovely little passage in Corinthians I, chapter 6 verses 9 to 11. We have already been reminded
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone…
It is when we face up to our basic weaknesses that we can find some hope in the grace of God.
We are told that the order is being introduced to bring us into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The dubiety and ambiguity that is used in debates in the House when it suits hon. Members is fascinating. When they want to do something differently, we are told that we are different. But when it comes to rationalising, we are told that we should be the same as the rest of the United Kingdom. Time and again we have asked to be legislated for and to act at the same level as the rest of the United Kingdom. When dealing with a moral issue, the House would do well not to castigate us because we are arguing for and representing the people of Northern Ireland.
I shall not go to Northern Ireland for evidence to support my argument that perhaps the law that the House introduced in 1967 has not worked as well as some folk think. A writer from England has said:
In an age of moral confusion and religious doubt, many people can only take their standards of right and wrong from the law itself. `If there is not a law against it, it must be alright'. Hence, when we removed criminal sanctions from homosexual acts between adults over 21 who consented in private, we were introducing, for many people a moral ambiguity, and a serious doubt. The result in England has been a vast growth of militant homosexual propagandists.
If hon. Members want evidence from within the confines of Parliament, I refer them to the Hansard of the House of Lords for 14 June 1977. It repays careful study.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that what was said by his correspondent from England was also said by the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Northern Ireland?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I was not aware of that specific link, but as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has said, the Roman Catholic hierarchy and many other people in the North of Ireland join most of the reformed Churches and the people of Northern Ireland in expressing concern about this matter. It is because of that concern that I oppose the order today.
I recognise that there is room for an amendment to be made to the 1861 Act. I recognise, too, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) has said, that the way in which one describes and treats offences may arouse fears and prejudices. Having said that, however, perhaps when it comes to murder in the North of Ireland this House may be culpable, too, because it has not been prepared to provide the sanctions of law in dealing with terrorism in this age, so that people just snap their fingers in the hope that in a year or two there will be an amnesty and those guilty of crimes most foul will be released on to the streets again. The House itself must therefore bear some responsibility for the way in which it creates a climate of public opinion with regard both to terrorism and to offences of homosexuality.
We are being asked to change our law to suit Europe and to suit others who, if given their head, will continue to indulge in practices against which some have already said "We will not go down that road". But can we guarantee that we shall not go down that road? It seems to me that the markers have already been moved somewhat. Only this morning before I left Northern Ireland I was speaking to a person involved in the whole concept of care within our social services. At one level in our social services we must provide help and understanding for those who have homosexual problems, but we must also provide for young people who may be victims of such people. We are establishing a pattern as we yield to the gay rights lobby and cry out for equal opportunities. It has already been suggested that people have been victimised because of their attitude to this. In this context, I should put it on the record that if the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North has heard of names being used against Mr. Dudgeon, I can only say that Mr. Dudgeon is a constituent of mine and at no time have I heard any names so used, but that may be because we move in different circles.
We must recognise that the markers that the House is setting and has already set in this area have repercussions in other areas, particularly in the treatment and care of


young people. There is no point in the House crying out with moral indignation about why this or that is allowed to happen, if we ourselves remove the sanctions that would at least remind people that there are standards that are unacceptable in our society.
I am not at all sure that imprisoning people with such inclinations is the best way to help them. Some judges already take the view that there should be fairly heavy monetary fines for the crime of soliciting. It seems to me that we might do better to change the law in that direction rather than simply say "It is all right if you do it in private". An attempt has been made to define privacy, but it is not easy to narrow the scope in that way, and it would be better to have the markers clearly laid down.
In an age when lifestyles, attitudes and values are changing, it might be worthwhile for the House to consider whether this is the lifestyle which we want to perpetuate in the United Kingdom, whether these are the attitudes which we want to develop and whether these are the values which we want to enshrine in our statute law. I believe that I speak for many in Northern Ireland when I say that these are not the values, this is not the lifestyle and these are not the attitudes that we wish the House to set for us. We want a better way for our children.

Mr. Michael Brown: It is pleasing to see so many hon. Members present for a debate on a Northern Ireland order. I hope that those who will join me in voting for the order will think again about their refusal to be moved earlier this year by the arguments of those of us who said that Ulster should be legislated for in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom.
I shall divide my speech into two parts. I shall consider, first, the constitutional way in which the order is being brought forward and, secondly, I shall consider the merits of the order. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he was introducing the order because of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. He said that the Government had defended the existing legislation, so presumably he would not have introduced the order if the European Court had not issued its judgment. I regard that as a failure on the part of my right hon. Friend. The order should have been brought forward on its merits and because there is an inconsistency between the law in Great Britain and that in Northern Ireland. I take the point of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on whether the change should be made in primary or secondary legislation, but the order should certainly not have been brought forward under duress.
It is intolerable that a person who is within the law in Britain is outside the law in Ulster and subject to prosecution.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that those of us who believe that, in general, Ulster should be ruled by the same laws as the rest of the United Kingdom should also be able to say that there may be regional variations, in the same way that, for example, licensing laws in Wales are different from those in the remainder of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Brown: There is a world of difference between drinking habits and the conduct of a person's private life. On the latter concept, I do not believe that there should be different laws in different parts of the United Kingdom.
I turn now to the merits of the order. It is not for politicians or churchmen to stand in the House, or anywhere else for that matter, and moralise about what people should or should not do within the privacy of their homes. The old-fashioned principle of personal liberty, which drove me into the Conservative Party as opposed to other political parties, should be paramount.
I ask all hon. Members, particularly those who have recently been elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly, to remember that homosexuals have votes. As candidates we are only too anxious to obtain the maximum number of votes, but we never question the personal character of anyone who casts those votes for us. There is an element of hypocrisy in the debate. We should consider whether this is the correct constitutional procedure to rectify the anomaly between England and Wales and Ulster. Nevertheless, that does not excuse us from considering the essential question as to whether it is fair that homosexuals in Northern Ireland should be discriminated against in a way that they would not be if they happened, by accident of birth, to be born in the rest of the Kingdom.
The good old-fashioned adage of "There but for the grace of God go I" should apply when a politician or Churchman seeks to moralise on this issue. We should recognise that on this issue politicians have no right to interfere in the personal life of an individual as long as that does not impinge on the individual rights of others.

Rev. Martin Smyth: rose—

Mr. Brown: I am drawing to a conclusion, so I shall not give way.
I urge the House to take advantage of the free vote 'to vote according to its conscience. I hope that it will cast its vote in favour of the order.

Mr. Leo Abse: The right hon. Member for Down, South, (Mr. Powell) has presented the House with constitutional arguments which prompt him to vote against the order. I am aware, as he has frankly said, that he was a keen and urgent supporter of the efforts that I made consistently during the 1960s to bring in the measure which I finally steered through in 1967. The right hon. Gentleman is on record as having supported me as early as 1965.
Therefore, I find it somewhat strange that in his passion for constitutional proprieties he dismisses so easily that minority within his constituency and all Northern Ireland who must now be suffering severely, and have done so for years, the discrimination of the existing law of 1861. The weakness of the constitutional argument that he advanced surely has some relation to the pressures which clearly are being put upon him by the electorate in Northern Ireland, where we gather from the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—whatever else we do not gather—there is great indignation about the order.
It is not correct, as the right hon. Member for Down, South suggested, that there is a pure doctrine that in matters of this kind it is always the Private Member who introduces the Bill. Historically that is not true. The Bill that I introduced was in collusion with the 1966–70 Labour Government, to their credit. It was done on the initiative of a Ten-Minute Bill when the House expressed its view, following which the Cabinet made the decision that full time should be given so that in accordance with the wishes of the House the Bill could reach the statute book.
The Home Secretary actively participated in every stage and there was full co-operation from the Government. The right hon. Member for Down, South has a notoriously manichaean frame of mind. Therefore, he would like to say that everything always depends on the initiative of a Private Member's Bill. That is not the position in relation to that Act. If he is relying on that to justify trying to vote down an attempt to give relief to a minority in Northern Ireland, he is allowing himself to be diminished.
The other argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South is that he must defy the European Convention on Human Rights. Such an infantile reaction to the whole weight of international law has naturally aroused on all sides a suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman might be seeking a pretext to justify his actions to his constituents. We well understand his difficulties and the boundary changes touching his constituency, but he could have sought more stature on such an occasion instead of engaging in a sententious exercise that involved lecturing us on constitutional proprieties so that he could sweep his real reasons for opposing the order under the table.
We must face the fact that the order represents the end of a miserable saga of humbug and hypocrisy on the part of successive Governments and on the part of Northern Ireland Members. It is to the shame of the House that it is only after the stern admonition of the European Court of Human Rights that the Government feel that they have been left with no alternative but to enact an order that will stop the sword of Damocles dangling over the heads of thousands of our fellow citizens. Because, in their private lives, they do not share our sexual predilections, they find themselves threatened by an ancient statute that has, as a penalty, life imprisonment.
The Government sought in vain to persuade the civilised court in Strasbourg that the present barbaric law should remain. They pleaded:
There were profound differences of attitudes between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in relation to questions of morality.
That argument was vigourously put forward in court; and no one could dispute it. Those in a position to end the appalling violence in Northern Ireland by being prepared to power share with a minority flamboyantly continue to refuse to do so and thus display an immoral intolerance that is, happily, alien to the mainland.
Tonight, 15 years after I sponsored the measure that this order follows, the same intolerance is being shamelessly displayed to another minority. Northern Ireland Members continue to resist according respect to the private lives of our fellow citizens and that for me yet again corroborates the fact that the continued subsidising of Ulster at more than £1 billion each year represents the foolish squandering of my constituents' money on a Province whose destiny can be determined only by its inhabitants.
Whatever the House does will be met by near paranoid reactions such as those displayed by the right hon. Member for Down, South. Last Thursday he extravagantly accused the Leader of the House and the Government of a cold and unremitting hostility towards the Province and its people because they had not provided more time for discussing this measure. This measure in fact has been discussed in the House for years. It was discussed in detail at every stage. The minutiae and the question raised by the hon.

Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) of not allowing stale offences to be prosecuted were exhaustively examined by hon. Members. Yet this is not a case of a measure without fault being presented. An old and out-of-date provision is now being presented to the House. It could not be otherwise. Grudgingly, because he has no alternative and is aware of opinion in Northern Ireland the Secretary of State has rightly said that he has followed what was done 15 years ago in an Act that had to concede to the prejudices of those days.
How absurd it is to say that the age of consent must be 21. How absurd it is that we should pass an order under which a ménage à trois can take place between a man and women but be outlawed when all men are involved. How absurd it is that the law should say that a man on a merchant ship can have a relationship with a passenger but that he cannot have such a relationship with a fellow sailor without an offence being committed. Absurdities are buried in the 1967 Act: that was the consensus of that time.
But to the hon. Members for Antrim, North and Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) I say that I do not believe that the men of Ulster are so diminished, so lacking in heterosexual drive and desire that ending the criminality of private, adult homosexual conduct will mean that Belfast will become a modern Sodom. I am sure that Ulster men have more robust and confident heterosexual appetites than their representatives in the House who seek so absurdly to persuade us that without criminal sanction Ulster men would prefer to go to bed with men than their beautiful and attractive women. Hon. Members do an unjustice both to the vigorous men of Ulster and to their delightful women.
I am sure that the House understands why the order is presented in such an unfortunate manner. It will understand, however, that, nevertheless, we are taking a step to ensure that a man who can live his life freely and privately in Wolverhampton cannot, as long as we control the destinies of Ulster, be metamorphosised into being a heinous criminal in Belfast. The right hon. Member for Down, South should have had the courage to express that view tonight, instead of dodging behind spurious constitutional niceties.

Mr. Prior: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that he considered that the House was acting under duress. I do not think that that is the mood of the House. We are asking the House to comply with an international obligation. That is a Government responsibility which we should not and cannot shirk. If the House wishes to change its mind about article 53, we must renounce it. The only alternative is to renounce article 25 which provides for the right of individual petition.
It is ironic that in 1980, when that came up for renewal and was renewed for five years, the only person who objected to it in the House was my Parliamentary Private Secretary. It was said that he objected because I wanted it objected to as it was that way that we would stop the railwaymen from going to court under the closed shop legislation. There is a curious irony about that. Nothing could be further from the truth. I had nothing to do with my hon. Friend's views on the subject, although they were attributed to me. I fully respected his views.
We have gone ahead because of the Government's responsibility, which we intend to fulfil.
It is uncorrect to say, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) did, that there were other orders on the Order Paper that we were not taking. The only other order on the Order Paper relates to planning. I have made it clear that any further orders will be put as draft orders to the Assembly in the normal course of events, and the Assembly can then discuss them in full. It is neither fair nor correct to say that that applies to this order, which has been on the order paper for some months.
I should like to say to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that it is possible to derogate from the Treaty under Article 15, but, as he knows and has had explained to him, the only circumstances are in time of war or other public emergency, and I do not believe that that could be argued in this case.
He suggested that the European Court had not taken proper cognisance of the views of the people of Northern Ireland. In its submission to the Court the Government pointed out, and the Court accepted, that there was a strong body of opinion in Northern Ireland—stemming from a genuine conviction—that felt that a change in the law would be seriously damaging to the moral fabric of society. Nevertheless, the Court believed that the needs and rights of homosexuals had to be protected, and that was the decision that it reached. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) made a short speech that everyone will have admired for its courage and understanding.
I was present during the debates on the Sexual Offences Bill in 1966 when some courageous speeches were made. There are many people who believe that homosexual acts are wrong, but equally many of the same people have a feeling of justice and compassion for those who find themselves in that state. It is not a crime to be a homosexual in Northern Ireland. It is only a crime to commit homosexual acts. The House is right to fulfil not only its international obligations but to bring about the long overdue change in the law. I hope that the House will support the order.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 21.

Division No. 325]
 [11.57 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Cope, John


Alexander, Richard
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)


Alton, David
Cryer, Bob


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Dalyell, Tam


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Deakins, Eric


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dorrell, Stephen


Beith, A. J.
Dover, Denshore


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dubs, Alfred


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Dykes, Hugh


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
English, Michael


Berry, Hon Anthony
Eyre, Reginald


Best, Keith
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Bevan, David Gilroy
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Field, Frank


Blaker, Peter
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Forman, Nigel


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Foulkes, George


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Goodlad, Alastair


Cook, Robin F.
Gow, Ian





Grieve, Percy
Pawsey, James


Gummer, John Selwyn
Pendry, Tom


Hamilton, Hon A.
Penhaligon, David


Hannam, John
Pitt, William Henry


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Prescott, John


Haselhurst, Alan
Prior, Rt Hon James


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Proctor, K. Harvey


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hayhoe, Barney
Rathbone, Tim


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Hicks, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Home Robertson, John
Rifkind, Malcolm


Hooson, Tom
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robertson, George


Hunt, John (Ravensboune)
Rooker, J. W.


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rossi, Hugh


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sandelson, Neville


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Scott, Nicholas


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Knox, David
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Lamont, Norman
Silvester, Fred


Lang, Ian
Sims, Roger


Latham, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Lee, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Soley, Clive


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Speed, Keith


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stevens, Martin


Lyell, Nicholas
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


MacGregor, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Strang, Gavin


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Thompson, Donald


Major, John
Tilley, John


Marland, Paul
Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)


Maxton, John
Trippier, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Mayhew, Patrick
Waddington, David


Mellor, David
Wakeham, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Miscampbell, Norman
Waller, Gary


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Warren, Kenneth


Montgomery, Fergus
Watson, John


Morton, George
Wheeler, John


Murphy, Christopher
White, Frank R.


Nelson, Anthony
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Neubert, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Newens, Stanley
Williams,Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Newton, Tony
Woolmer, Kenneth


O'Neill, Martin
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Page, Richard (SW Herts)



Parris, Matthew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Mr. Peter Brooke and


Patten, John (Oxford)
Mr. David Hunt.




NOES


Ancram, Michael
Porter, Barry


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)


Blackburn, John
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Brotherton, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.


Budgen, Nick
Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)


Clark, Sir W.(Croydon S)
Stainton, Keith


Dunlop, John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


McCusker, H.
Winterton, Nicholas


Marlow, Antony



Mawby, Ray
Tellers for the Noes:


Molyneaux, James
Mr. William Ross and


Morgan, Geraint
Mr. Peter Robinson.


Paisley, Rev Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 14th July, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Planning)

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move,
That the draft Planning (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
The basic principles of planning law in Northern Ireland are the same as those for the rest of the United Kingdom. The main difference is in its application. In Great Britain, primary responsibility rests with the local authorities, whereas in Northern Ireland that responsibility is vested in the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. The Government believe that it is right to have that broad equivalence so that developers throughout the United Kingdom are not faced with significantly different sets of rules.
The draft order is designed to maintain those principles while allowing for adaptations and modifications that are necessary to reflect the circumstances and administrative arrangements in Northern Ireland. Some of the changes in the draft order are necessary to apply to Northern Ireland some of the provisions of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government and Planning (Amendment) Act 1981. Others are designed to provide more effective enforcement in Northern Ireland.
The main theme of the order is the enforcement of planning control and the improvement of enforcement procedures. The key problem is that, under existing Northern Ireland law, there were opportunities to delay the enforcement process through what has become known as the "dual appeal" system. The order provides for a single appeal system. At present, an enforcement notice can be suspended on two fronts in Northern Ireland, by the expedient of submitting a planning application as well as by appealing to the magistrates' court. The enforcement notice will not become effective until after the hearing of, first, the planning application, secondly, any subsequent appeal to the Planning Appeals Commission, and, thirdly, the court hearing. Those three stages of delay cause the present unsatisfactory position.
Articles 8 and 10 of the draft order provide for the transfer of responsibility for dealing with appeals against enforcement notices and listed building enforcement notices from the magistrates' courts to the Planning Appeals Commission. The commission is the independent body charged with determining appeals against planning decisions of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland.
The existing dual appeals system enables a developer to pursue unauthorised development for a considerable time. I know that several hon. Members have been worried about that. It may cause problems about time limits set for the initiation of prosecutions. There has also been confusion about the separate appellate bodies. In Great Britain there is now a single appeal in enforcement cases to the Secretary of State. We cannot do that in Northern Ireland, because the Department of the Environment is the planning authority and the Minister would be judge and jury in his own decisions. Under the new procedures in the draft order, appeals against enforcement notices will lie to the Planning Appeals Commission. The appeal will also be deemed to be a planning application for the unauthorised development. It means that the facts of the


case and the planning merits can be considered simultaneously by one body. The submission of a planning application will no longer stay the coming into effect of the enforcement notice.
At the same time as reducing the delay, the order provides for the introduction of greater flexibility into the enforcement system. Under article 7, an enforcement notice may include requirements for the alteration of unauthorised development to make it acceptable in planning terms. The present arrangements allow the Department only to require the restoration of the land to its state before the commencement of unauthorised development.
Article 11 gives the Department new powers to enforce conditions for the replacement of trees subject to a tree preservation order that have been felled by agreement and where in the past we could not insist on replanting.
Several important provisions relate to listed buildings. Article 4 provides some protection to developers who receive planning permission for development that involves the alteration, extension or demolition of a building by enabling a developer to seek a certificate from the Department stating that the building will not be listed for five years. Until now, a developer with such permission could find himself in difficulties if a building that he planned to develop was listed later but before he had begun work.
Article 5 provided that listed building consent may be sought after development has been carried out. This provision is already available to other types of development. It is only reasonable, if a person has carried out works to a listed building without consent, and those works are acceptable, to give a consent after the event. If the works are not acceptable, appropriate enforcement action would be taken.
Article 6 introduces time limits on the operation of listed building consents in the same way as time limits are imposed on planning permissions. It also introduces a new consideration whereby the Department is able to take into account not only the listed building itself but also its setting.
Hon. Members will wish to know that articles 12 to 19 of the draft order deal with a number of miscellaneous planning matters. Article 12 deals with a technical point about purchase notices.
Article 13 makes the changes necessary to charge planning fees for enforcement appeals made to the Planning Appeals Commission as if they were deemed applications, otherwise, hon. Members will realise, a new loophole would be opened up with people seeking to carry out development not paying planning fees and not being caught when the enforcement notice was served on them. They will be caught within the catchment of article 13.
Article 14 requires that a condition of planning consent that a building should be demolished must be registered on the Statutory Charges Register so any prospective purchaser will be on notice that there is a requirement that it can be demolished.
Article 15 enables the Department to take out a summons within three years of the commission of certain enforcement offences instead of six months at present. It can happen in an enforcement case that attempts to reach a compromise become protracted and the six-months time limit expires. This extension allows more flexibility when that happens.
Article 18 will close a loophole to prevent planning compensation from being claimed twice in respect of a second refusal for a similar development.
Finally, article 3 extends the right of appeal of an individual against certain planning decisions. It is not uncommon for a planning permission to include a condition to the effect that a particular element in the development is subject to further agreement with the Department. Up to now there has been no right of appeal against such a condition and article 3 now gives such a right.
The draft order, hon. Members will realise, has taken some time to appear, but it was thought necessary to ensure that any amending legislation for Northern Ireland should take full account of changes to legislation in Great Britain.
The provision of the draft order will be invaluable to the Department of the Environment in enforcing planning controls and will help developers by clarifying their responsibilities.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: I shall not keep the House long at this late hour. I thank the Minister for going through the order The consultation process has been thorough and I have received no objections. All the groups in Northern Ireland with an interest in the order have let me know that they welcome it.
With those few remarks, wish the order godspeed.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It was certain understatement on the part of the Minister when he said that the order had taken some time to appear. Its gestation, if we trace it far enough back, has been a long one, and the compliments arid thanks that I shall eventually direct to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Mitchell) will need to be shared by a former hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield Mr. R. Carter—as well as by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart).
Although there a T a few provisions in the order that are not concerned directly or indirectly with enforcement, substantially this is an order to improve the efficiency of planning enforcement in Northern Ireland. For anyone coming to Northern Ireland from Great Britain, the extent to which planning control appeared to be evaded came as a shock. A good deal of suspicion of contumacy, not to say collusion, entered into the minds of some of us who have surveyed this scene over past years.
All the reasons for that difference, apparent or real, in the efficiency of enforcement between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom will, I believe, be removed by the order, which is very much welcomed. Indeed, it would have been welcomed had it been produced earlier. In all circumstances, it is very undesirable that there should be a public impression that it is possible for certain individuals or possibly for people generally to get away with a breach of planning control simply by going ahead with development and hoping for the best or in more flagrant cases openly defying planning controls and hoping that enforcement procedures will not be taken.
It weakens respect for law in general. It weakens respect for planning law in particular. It is especially undesirable in Northern Ireland where every breach or apparent breach of the law is given by members of the


public a certain interpretation. One is liable to hear it said, "He got away with it because he is of this religious persuasion. Of course, he would not have got away with it if he had been of another religious persuasion". I doubt if that has often, if ever, been the case. It is, however, that kind of suspicion that fastens and feeds upon weakness in enforcement procedures. I am glad that this will be removed—I hope that it will be removed—by the legislation.
The investigation of this whole problem has not been brief. It turned out, upon examination, that there were no fewer than three causes to which the weakness of planning control had been attributable. The first, with which the Minister dealt, was the distinction between the ultimate arbiter on planning decisions and the ultimate arbiter on enforcement. The ultimate arbiter on planning decisions is the Planning Appeals Commission in Northern Ireland and the ultimate arbiter on enforcement the magistrates' court.
It would not be quite accurate to say that a would-be breaker of planning control could play one off against the other. But the alternatives that were open to a would-be developer in contravention or contempt of planning control did make it possible for grave delays to supervene which, in some cases, finally prevented breaches of planning ever being dealt with. I wince at certain points in my constituency when I pass the site of events of the type that I have modestly indicated.
The second reason why planning control has been defective is that the magistrates' court which was the arbiter of enforcement appeals was also the court that dealt with prosecutions for failure to comply with an enforcement order. Under the general rules applying in those courts, it could only deal with cases that were brought within six months of the last date for compliance specified in the enforcement order. Those who were wise of this business were fertile of means for playing out the six months' time. This prevented the enforcement order, even if made, actually being put into effect. I might perhaps pause at this stage to rub in the point that, if the public see that an order is made but not enforced, the public will come to the wrong conclusion. It is true that they will come to the right conclusion, namely, that there is something amiss, but they are liable to think that the enforcement order was not put into effect due to some favouritism or other consideration. What was amiss was the powers open to the magistrates' court to deal with prosecutions following failure to comply with enforcement orders.
The third reason for the weakness of planning control was the limitation of the power of enforcement to reversing the breach which had occurred. There are instances where to insist upon a total 100 per cent. reversal of breach of planning control or planning consent is manifestly not only onerous to the offender but also unreasonable in itself, and the very fact that the Department knew that it could not make a modified enforcement order and that it could not oblige the contravenor of planning to put right in a different way what he had done wrong, by reinstating in an acceptable but not a 100 per cent. fashion, must have been a deterrent to engaging in enforcement action.
In fact, there were so many difficulties in the way of enforcement that one tended to send up a cheer when

eventually one got the Department, in the most flagrant breaches of planning control, to agree that there should be an enforcement order. One hopes that that dispensation is at an end.
The three causes which I have outlined are remedied by the order. The first—having different courts of appeal on planning and enforcement—is removed by combining both functions in the planning commission. As the Minister said, if we enjoyed the blessings of democratic local government in Northern Ireland it would be possible for him, as Minister, to be, as he would be correspondingly in Great Britain, the arbiter on planning and on enforcement, but clearly, since he is the planning authority of first instance, he cannot be the judge of appeal on second instance. Therefore, it was inevitable and right to give to the planning commission the duty of dealing with enforcement cases in a planning context. I think that we have gained something on the side there, because the effect is that the appeals procedure will no longer, as it did in the magistrates' court, lead to a simple "Yes" or "No" from the court; it can lead to a genuine planning decision taken in the light of planning circumstances.
The second remedy which has been applied is to extend the six months period in the magistrates' court to three years. I only hope that the three years will be enough. It is beyond question that six months for this purpose was absurdly short, but some experiences which one has had lead one to wonder whether it is beyond human ingenuity to find excuses or devices which can be played out for a period as long as three years. I would have been happier if it had been possible to take it to an even longer period than three years, but at any rate three years will give us far more protection than we enjoy at the moment. Indeed, it will create the possibility of effective prosecution, which at the moment hardly exists.
The third obstacle is removed by the provision of flexibility in planning control and enforcement, so that the planning authority will no longer be deterred from proceeding with enforcement by the evident unreasonableness of the only requirements that it can attempt to impose.
There is genuine ground for rejoicing over the order. It will inaugurate a period in which gradually people in Northern Ireland will accustom themselves to the position that once planning control has been applied or a planning decision has been taken that decision will sooner or later, but no doubt, be applied.
I hope, too, that the order will result in a greater respect for planning law and control and consequently in less development taking place on spec without planning permission having been applied for. It is not in itself an offence to develop without planning permission; it is only a risk. But the order inevitably makes the risk much higher. It will therefore, greatly reduce the number of cases in which, without breaking the law, developers have gone ahead, pretty secure in some cases, in the judgment that in the event of planning control going against them they would in some way get away with it.
Those of us who believe that planning control has much to contribute positively to development in Northern Ireland welcome the order and congratulate the present Minister—the last of a series who have had their hands to this plough—on having been the Minister eventually to bring it to fruition and get it on to the Northern Ireland statute book.

Mr. William Ross: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) I welcome the order in general, but I have a number of questions for the Minister. The more one looks at the order, the more one becomes anxious about certain of its implications. A number of planning and development matters are not yet fully satisfactory, not least the old chestnut of the problem of development land that becomes landlocked. I have discussed the problem in my constituency with the Minister.
In article 3 a new right of appeal is created where the Department refuses consent, agreement or approval. As the Department of the Environment is in charge of planning, the planning officials should know when permission will be refused by Departments with responsibility for roads, water or sewerage, and act accordingly. One is left with the suspicion that the left hand does not know what the right is doing at the Department of the Environment. Can the Minister assure us that the planning authority takes account of all the possibilities when a planning application comes forward?
The Minister seemed to say that article 4 would help those who wished to develop property, especially where a listed building might have to be demolished or altered. I wonder whether it is designed to help the developer. Is it not rather designed to help planners and those who might have an interest in the conservation of buildings that have acquired a special interest?
It is clear from experience that when buildings of a particular type are plentiful, one such building's historical or architectural interest is not so great. However, if many such buildings are demolished, the remaining ones become much more valuable.
In those circumstances, it would appear that the developer is merely drawing the attention of planners and those who are interested in such buildings to the fact that he owns such a structure. In that sense, he may be harming himself. If the planning authorities did not know about that building, it could disappear and it would not be missed. I wonder, therefore, whether the order will be as helpful to the developer as the Minister seemed to think.
When an owner of a building, usually an old one, considers knocking it down, he needs clearer guidelines than those that are supplied at present. How is the ordinary individual to know whether he owns an example of architecture that is scarce in Northern Ireland and should be preserved? When will there be a comprehensive survey, when will it be completed and when will owners be informed that their buildings are of interest to the community in general?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is not a full answer, but the work of the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society has gone a considerable way towards answering my hon. Friend's question. It has produced for various parts of the Province admirable lists of buildings which are of historical interest, irrespective of whether they might eventually be listed. This must be of help to owners who are in the position that my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry mentions.

Mr. Ross: I assure my right hon. Friend that I am aware of that survey, but how far has it got, and are all the owners of such buildings informed that the buildings are of interest to the general public?
The useful explanatory document says that article 6 provides that there must be a contract for redevelopment

before a building can be demolished. Whenever a contract or an application for demolition is being considered, everything, including the siting of the building, is taken into account. I should like the implications of that for the developer to be spelt out.
Does it mean that if the developer is demolishing a building in a terrace of the kind that we have in some parts of Londonderry, he must create a building with a similar facade to that in existence to preserve the whole, or does it mean something else? If such re-creation involves greatly increased costs to the developer, will he receive any assistance or will he have to pay the full cost up to the standard that can be demanded by the order?
Article 7 deals with the enforcement of planning controls. Every Northern Ireland Member has come across many examples of planning law being flouted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South mentioned a number of examples in his constituency and I believe that there are many more in my own constituency that have not yet come to light, 1 all the rumours that I hear are true.
I am extremely worried about the enormous amount of unauthorised development that has taken place throughout Northern Ireland. I wonder whether article 7 will really redress the balance and lead to the enforcement of the law or whether it will simply provide a loophole for the lawbreakers, who have got away with constructing all kinds of buildings over the years. Is this a way out of the responsibilities that planners bear to the whole community, or is it a serious attempt to make some sense of the miserable episode in planning law through which we have lived and which the order seeks to correct?
I understand that law-breaking has been taking place at least since 1974 and that most of the problems have arisen since then. I hope :hat a serious effort will be made to enforce the law and to minimise the worst effects of the law breaking that has taken place over the years.
Article 9 enables the Department to require remedial works to be done to listed buildings, but refers to the. impracticability of complete restoration where a building has been demolished or altered without consent. Who is to judge what is impracticable? Will the matter go to a tribunal of some kind, or will the Minister make the decision? Who is to judge the practicability or impracticability of complete restoration of a building that has been demolished or altered out of all recognition? People need to know how the legislation will apply in practice before they will be satisfied that it will really achieve what we are told that it seeks to do.
Article 11 provides for the replacement of trees that are the subject of tree preservation orders. There are many ways of getting rid of a tree. One does not actually have to cut it down. It cart be killed by many of the numerous chemicals on the market so that it becomes a danger and has to be chopped down. It can simply be barked all the way round and it will quickly die. In any of those circumstances, the order makes provision for the replacement of the tree by replanting. A tree does not grow to its full size overnight, however. It takes a very long time.
Have the Minister and his Department given full thought to what they are taking on in this article? If a person is told to replant a tree, he will naturally replant a small tree, which will take many years to grow into something that is recognisable as a tree in any true sense.


What are the Department's powers for the protection of the tree while it is growing? How will its survival be ensured? If we cannot do that, the article is nonsense.
Anyone who wishes to avoid having a tree growing in front of his house can do so. I should like to know how the Department intends to enforce the provision and to ensure that in 50 years time there will be a tree growing where the old one was cut down last week. It is an impossible task and it is glossed over in the order.
Article 13 deals with planning fees, which are increased annually. Many people in Northern Ireland, especially councillors, would like an explanation of the thinking behind the level of fees. Are they intended to cover the full cost of processing planning applications? If they are meant to cover part of the cost, what proportion is covered? How is the level of fees arrived at? I understand that the level is increased in line with inflation, but what was the original thinking behind the fee levels? Should the money raised be regarded as taxation for a specific purpose? I oppose that, because the principle has never worked. I hope that the Minister will tell us by now much it is intended fees should be increased and what the money is used for.
Article 14 deals with the demolition or cessation of use as a dwelling of a house on land on which the building of a replacement house has been authorised. Is it intended to stop the practice of worn-out dwellings that are supposed to be replaced by new houses being improved and still used as dwellings?
Has the Minister any figures on how often planning permission has been given for a new dwelling on condition that the existing dwelling on or near the site would be demolished? On how many occasions when the old house was not demolished was the owner able to get a grant from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to improve that property, so that he ended up with two virtually new houses where only one existed before? I believe that that has happened far more often than the Department may realise.
Article 18 appears to be tied to article 14, but with a small addition in subsection (3A), which states that compensation for the refusal of planning permission
shall not be payable under this section on more than one occasion in relation to any estate in land.
Has compensation been paid on more than one occasion in respect of the same land? If so, has that compensation been paid to the same owner, or to a different one? I should have thought that if planning permission were refused, especially on a green field site, the land would remain or revert to agriculture only.
That is all very well so long as the planners' view of that portion of land remains the same as when the compensation was paid. However, what will the position be if in 5, 10, 15 or 20 years the planning authorities decide that such land can be developed? Compensation may have been paid on the basis that the land would not be developed, and all at once the planners change their minds. That could lead to great personal loss to the former owners of such property if it were sold on the basis that it could not and would not be developed.
As the Minister is well aware, the Prehen golf course in Londonderry is an outstanding example of that. A constituent of mine tried for many years to get planning permission for houses there and, because he was unable to get it, sold the land to the golf course, which eventually

received planning permission for the construction of a considerable number of houses there. That is a case that has caused much disquiet in my constituency. I wonder how such a case can be avoided in future, because it does no good to the Northern Ireland Office or to the Minister.
There are still considerable gaps in planning law. I welcome the order, because it will close some of the loopholes. Above all, it will close that loophole, which has been dealt with at some length, where enforcement is delayed for six months and the person breaking the law has appeared to get away with it with impunity.

Mr. David Mitchell: Several important points have been raised. At the start, the order was welcomed by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. He wished it godspeed, and I am grateful to him for that. I have come today from visiting Enniskillen and after seeing the sheer beauty of the countryside in Fermanagh and over the weekend walking part of the Ulster Way through the Mourne mountains I can say that it is not in the least a matter of surprise that Ulster Members should be speaking in the House today in an anxiety to ensure that there is adequate protection for the Province's beauty and to ensure that, when necessary, enforcement proceedings are carried through effectively.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke of the suspicions that can so easily run like fire through Northern Ireland society if there appears to be any disparity between the treatment meted out to one applicant as compared with another. I wholly agree that that underlines the need to ensure absolute fairness in the application of the planning system.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the scope for delay and mentioned some cases in his constituency where he felt concern every time he saw some buildings. One case that I came across recently involved the erection of a non-agricultural building in an agricultural area. That was spun out for four years by the use of the procedures under the dual appeal system. In another case, the erection of a repair depot for lorries in a residential area was spun out for four years. In both cases there were significant objections from the neighbours about what was being done. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the opportunity that existed in the previous legislation to delay the application of an enforcement case. However, he should not assume that the existing law has no teeth. Hon. Members may have given the impression that the existing enforcement arrangements have no bite.
Since 1 January 1980, 148 enforcement notices were served. Of those, 23 resulted in prosecutions. In addition, in the past month two people have been fined £500 each and another person has been fined £1,200. Therefore, there are some teeth in the existing operation, but, because of unduly long delays, we have introduced this order. Some hon. Members may have noticed that there has been some administrative speeding up. Previously, legal proceedings were dealt with through the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, he has other matters on his hands and other priorities and as a result, this subject has not perhaps been given top priority.
In February this year I had the legal proceedings transferred to the legal department of the Department of the Environment. As a result, there has been some speeding up. That, together with the changes introduced


by the order, will give our provisions effective teeth. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) raised several technical points, which I shall deal with as expeditiously as possible. He asked, in particular, about article 3, which provides a new right of appeal. Where the Department has refused any consent, agreement or approval required by a condition imposed on a planning permission, the applicant will be able to appeal to the Planning Appeals Commission, the independent authority with responsibility for deciding appeals against the Department's decision. At present, there is no appeal against a refusal on a consent required by a planning condition. Such consents normally relate to matters such as the layout of a housing development, the use of premises at unsocial hours and so on.
I have also been asked about article 4. Paragraph (1) of article 31A helps the developer by enabling him to get a certificate that it is not intended to list a building for five years. Therefore, I can give the assurance that is being sought. The provision has been designed to help the developer to know exactly where he stands. I shall write to the hon. Member for Londonderry about the programme for listing historic buildings. However, I have been asked for some statistics that I do not happen to have to hand.
I have also been asked about article 6 and the reconstruction of listed buildings. Each proposal must be considered on its architectural merits. The Department will seek the best advice available. Grants are, of course, available for the repair and maintenance of listed buildings. A point was raised about repeated refusals and subsequent consent being given. Examples in Londonderry were cited. We are all aware of such things in our constituencies.
Two factors are involved. First, as a town's natural growth occurs, land which was not right for development becomes the next appropriate place for development. In 10

or 15 years, population changes take place along with changes in pressure and demand. Our planning system should not be so inflexible that it cannot take account of human needs. If it were so inflexible we should be the servants of planning rather than it being the servant of the community.
Secondly, changes in policy occur. I announced a change of policy 15 months ago. It changed policy in relation to small businesses and isolated developments in rural areas. I am anxious to encourage the maintenance of life in small villages and hamlets. If one or two extra houses are not built, the community will die and serve no purpose. Many villages were created because people worked on the land and blacksmiths and associated trades were established. Today, unless small business opportunities are created and a few additional houses are built small communities will decay.
Policy must be changed from time to time. The changes that I introduced were welcomed, but a necessary concomitant of the changes is that decisions taken against the previous criteria will be changed because of the new criteria. I accept the anxiety, but in some circumstances that is right.
I shall reply in writing about the technicalities. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Planning (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.

PROCEDURE (FINANCE)

Resolved,

That the Standing Order of 22nd January relating to the nomination of the Select Committee on Procedure (Finance) be amended by leaving out Mr. W. W. Hamilton.—[Mr. Lang.]

Hazardous Materials (Storage)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: A number of incidents in recent years have involved fires and explosions at warehouses or transport depots, causing enormous damage and distress in the neighbourhoods concerned. A feature of the incidents is the involvement of stores of chemicals. Examination reveals alarming inadequacies in the law and regulations controlling the use of such premises.
The fire and explosion at the Braehead container depot at Renfrew on 4 January 1977 damaged shops and houses up to a mile away and total damage was estimated at £6 million. The incident led to a special investigation and report by the Factory Inspectorate. That, I have no doubt, was partly responsible for a review of notification procedures for hazardous substances and the new regulations laid before Parliament on 4 October this year.
By an ironic coincidence, another major explosion had then just occurred at a transport depot in Salford. It happened on 25 September and again involved chemicals, possibly sodium chlorate, which was also involved at Braehead.
The night explosion woke people in over 500 square miles of the North-West. It broke hundreds of windows in homes and shops and involved the evacuation of 700 people from their homes. Sixty residents were overcome by toxic fumes and the total damage was estimated at £1·5 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) said that it was horrifying that dangerous chemicals were stored in the heart of one of the most thickly populated areas of Europe.
On 13 February of this year a fire involving chemicals occurred at a warehouse in Woodkirk in my constituency. It was described in a report by the West Yorkshire county council:
As a fire the Woodkirk incident was not exceptional …As a pollution incident, however, Woodkirk was disastrous.
As a result of that incident 150 homes were without tap water for several days, as the supply was turned off in case of poisonous pollution. A local beck and the River Calder were contaminated for many miles. That led to danger warnings to residents, farmers, power stations and industrialists. Local plant and vegetable life was damaged for several weeks. Serious danger from toxic fumes was avoided only by the good fortune of the wind direction. The House will understand the tremendous anxiety that that incident caused my constituents in Woodkirk, and which the other incidents caused to the residents of Renfrew and Salford.
There have been moves over the years to improve safety requirements within and without chemical plants considered to be a major hazard. A major hazard was defined in section 5 of the Department of the Environment's circular 1/72 as where:
There might be a substantial loss of life or serious injury outside the confines of the workplace.
The circular continued:
The preparation of this list called for some arbitrary assumptions to be made about the materials likely to be concerned and the quantities of them which would constitute a major hazard.…both materials and quantities may have to be amended.…in the light of new information becoming available.

Such an amended list was issued in the new regulations for the notification of installations handling hazardous substances which are due to come into effect on 1 January 1982. That new list is inadequate with regard to quantities, coverage and mixtures of chemicals.
The Woodkirk incident shows clearly the weakness of present controls and the inadequacy of the latest regulations, which would have had no impact on that incident. The chemicals involved at Woodkirk were diquat, paraquat and octyl-phenol, none of which is on the new list. It was the combination of the chemicals, the method of storage and the position of the warehouse in relation to houses and a water course that provided the mix that brought an environmental and almost human disaster to Woodkirk.
Chemicals are being moved along our roads and railways, and through and into residential areas, for warehousing in changing and diverse quantities and mixtures. It is inadequate to approach the problems of control on a major national-hazard basis. The three cases that I have outlined would not have been classified as major hazards by current legislation or regulations. They were gravely serious, and by a miracle only were not a total disaster.
A recognition of the hazards to local residential areas from the storage of chemicals in warehouses and transport depots must go far beyond concern only with national disasters. It is surely wrong that planning permission can relate only to warehousing and offer no control over the danger arising from what is stored in the warehouses. There is virtually no planning control over this problem.
There is frequently much debate about and planning control power over the change of use of a shop into a fish and chip shop, yet a local community has no means of knowing—nor does it have any power to control—the dangerous chemicals or combinations of chemicals that are stored in the anonymous-faced warehouses in its midst.
I wish to make some positive suggestions for improvements. First, the problems arising from the storage of chemicals in warehouses and depots need to be considered as seriously as those arising from the actual production of chemicals in factories.
Secondly, the use of premises for storage of chemicals should require specific planning permission. Presumably that would require a change in the law, so that such a use becomes "development" and/or a change of use within the meaning of planning law.
Thirdly, consideration needs to be given to dealing with existing warehouses within a changed approach to planning law. Where the use of premises can reasonably be shown to pose a potential danger to a community, I suggest that it is unreasonable to face a local council with the choice between public safety and large financial compensation to warehouse operators.
Fourthly, as an aid to my first three suggestions, or as a partial substitute, consideration should be given to permitting the storage of chemicals only where a specific licence has been granted for that purpose. Surely it is not unreasonable to require the operators of a warehouse to obtain specific permission for the storage of named chemicals in specified maximum quantities in agreed conditions. After all, the object is to provide for the safety and peace of mind of the residents in the neighbourhood of that warehouse.
Fifthly, a fresh look needs to be taken at how best to detail the types, quantities and mixtures of chemicals that can be stored safely in warehouses and transport depots.
Sixthly, responsibility for the ultimate authority to authorise and control the storage of chemicals needs to be much simpler and clearer. The present mass of bodies involved—local councils, counties and districts, fire authorities, water authorities, and health and safety executives—bewilders the public and makes accessibility and accountability to local people exceptionally difficult.
Lastly, section 31(4) and (5) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 should be brought into effect and applied by the Secretary of State for the Environment to provide extra safeguards against the pollution of water supplies.
I have sought tonight to bring to the attention of the House a problem of genuine concern and real importance to local communities, not only in Woodkirk and Salford, but throughout the country. We should not wait for disasters to make action unavoidable. There are no perfect solutions, and I accept that there is none without problems. However, action is required, and I hope that my suggestion will receive careful consideration by the Ministers concerned.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington): No one would doubt the importance of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer). The most careful consideration will be given to the various points that he raised and the suggestions that he made. The Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982 have been laid before Parliament. That might afford the opportunity for a debate on those matters which are involved. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me in a quarter of an hour to reply to the important points that he has made.
I appreciate the concern that the hon. Gentleman felt about the serious fire that occurred in a warehouse in his constituency last February. His concern and that of everyone else was heightened by the recent explosions and fires in the constituencies of the hon. Members representing Salford and Ipswich. I sympathise with those who suffered injuries. Fortunately, the injuries that occurred were not serious. However, by saying that, I do not underestimate for one moment the stress and inconvenience that were also caused to those living nearby. The incident at Salford must have been terrifying and the incident that occurred in the hon. Gentleman's constituency caused great worry and inconvenience to the people affected. It is right that I should take this opportunity to say a little about those incidents.
The fire at Salford began on 25 September at 11.30 pm in a transit warehouse. It was followed by explosions that damaged windows and roofs in adjacent property. Sixty people received hospital treatment, most of them suffering from the effect of smoke and fumes and some from cuts from flying glass.
The Health and Safety Commission has directed the Health and Safety Executive to investigate and make a special report on the incident under section 14(2)(a) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. I am satisfied that that is the proper and quick way of establishing the facts behind the incident. The report of the inquiry will be made public.
The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) said that other connected matters should be considered by the investigators, particularly the planning history of the site. I assured the hon. Gentleman by letter that that matter would be considered.
The incident at Ipswich happened at 10.30 in the morning of 14 October at a shipping warehouse in Ipswich. Welding was being undertaken on a metal-framed window shortly before the fire was discovered, but the cause of the fire has not been established. The HSE Is carrying out investigations. The House will be interested to know that the fire occurred where fertiliser ammonium nitrate was being stored together with some charcoal, potassium nitrate, wicker furniture, and other materials. Dense fumes were given off, which caused inconvenience to local residents.
The hon. Member for Batley and Morley also referred to the incident at Woodkirk. He referred in particular to the major pollution that occurred.
Those incidents illustrate the new problems that have arisen as a result of the increased use of hazardous materials. Those incidents would not have happened 50 years ago. If the we of those materials were forbidden, there would be the most drastic effect on British industry. They are of the utmost importance to British industry. That must not be forgotten.
It must also be remembered that measures already exist that can help to minimise the risks, although it is easy to argue that more should be done. All those incidents occurred at places cf work and are therefore covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The Act places duties on the employer to ensure the safety not only of his employees but of others who may be affected thereby. The Act is enforced by the HSE and in certain premises by local authority officers.
This matter was touched on by the hon. Gentleman. Since 1972, and because of the risk of an incident on a site affecting people outside the site, local planning authorities have been advised by the Department of the Environment to consult the Health and Safety Executive when they have been considering planning applications for developments handling substantial quantities of potentially hazardous materials or for developments nearby that might be affected by such hazardous installations. At the back of the circular issued in 1972 the hazardous materials are listed.
Unfortunately, planning controls do not necessarily prevent people from setting up new hazardous installations without planning consent. There is no obligation on occupiers to notify the Health and Safety Executive what they are storing, so that neither the local authority nor the Health and Safety Executive may be aware that hazardous activities are taking place. Therefore, one must not underestimate the importance of the new regulations. For the first time, a notification requirement will be placed on those who use hazardous materials.
The new regulations will come into force on 1 January 1983. They will require the notification to the Health and Safety Executive of the presence at any site or in any pipeline of specified quantities of certain hazardous substances. Under the regulations, the person in control of a warehouse holding the threshold quantity or more of a hazardous substance will be required to make notification thereof to the Health and Safety Executive, which will pass the information to the local planning authority and emergency services. I understand that the premises in Salford would have been covered by the regulations. If,


as it is believed, there were 27 tonnes of sodium chlorate on site at the time—the threshold in the new regulations is 25 tonnes—the regulations would have bitten there, although they would not have bitten in Ipswich or Morley. The difficulty is that, if one must have regulations providing for notification, one must have a threshold somewhere. It is a matter of judgment as to where the threshold should be placed, bearing in mind the danger involved and the need to ensure adequate enforcement and a reasonable expectation that the regulations will be observed.
The application of the regulations to transport depots presents a problem. It depends on the extent of the associated storage, because the regulations exclude specifically hazardous substances that are being transported. The Advisory Committee on Major Hazards believed it to be right to concentrate its initial work on static hazards, so that railway marshalling yards and overnight depots are effectively excluded. But many transport depots involve storage, pending re-distribution, and in such cases notification requirements would apply.
The regulations stem from the work of the Advisory Committee on Major Hazards, which has now almost completed a preliminary review of major hazards in transport and made a report to the Health and Safety Commission. The Commission accepted the report and began further work on the matter. One area identified by the advisory committee as requiring closer consideration was transport depots.
The second report of the advisory committee, published in 1979, suggested changes in planning legislation for hazardous developments, and earlier this year the Health and Safety Commission submitted a series of recommendations to planning Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment produced proposals for amending planning controls over hazardous developent so as to remove hazardous developments from the benefits conferred by the General Development or the Use Classes Order. Those proposals, which would mean more occasions on which planning authorities could exercise specific planning control over such development, are currently subject to public consultation following the publication of the consultative document on 26 August.
I am sure that many organisations and individuals will make their contributions and that by 19 November, the closing date, it will be possible to hear a large number of informed views on this matter. In the light of the comments received, my right hon. Friend will be considering as a matter of urgency what changes should be made.
This touches on the most important part of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Batley and Morley. It is a matter of great concern to many of us as to how best we should deal with the planning aspect of this problem. The hon. Member is right in saying that, if one were to say that there had to be specific planning permission for the storage of chemicals, there would have to be primary legislation and a change in the town and

country planning legislation. That is not to say that eventually that might not be thought necessary, but it would be a large step.
Finally, the HSE is drawing up further regulations to implement, by January 1984, the provisions of the EC (Seveso) directive on major accident hazards in certain industrial activities. This directive requires further controls on establishments handling many highly toxic chemicals, or larger inventories of other hazardous substances. The main provisions include a duty on the manufacturers to carry out a hazard survey and make a report to the HSE; the preparation of emergency plans by the manufacturer within the site and by a competent authority outside the site; and dissemination of certain information to members of the public who might be affected by an accident.
These provisions will greatly strengthen the controls over many installations where processes take place involving hazardous chemicals. However, they will not greatly affect control over warehouses, as the directive contains significant relaxations for isolated storage of such materials.
Quite clearly, when resources are not unlimited—they never are—priority must be given to larger sites, the places where larger quantities of materials are being stored. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the threshold levels so far as the obligation to notify is concerned are not very low, as is obvious from the impact that they would have on these incidents.
This means that even when the new regulations are in force there may be incidents causing public alarm which do not come within their scope. The premises at Salford would have been notifiable and, in any event, wherever there is a place of work the general duties under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act will continue to apply, together with other duties required by other regulations made under the Act.
For instance, the Packaging and Labelling of Dangerous Substances Regulations 1978, as amended in 1981, prescribe simple rules for labelling over 1,000 pure chemical substances, and this can help to achieve safer storage and transportation. In fact, the 1978 regulations are being revised and greatly expanded to cover all dangerous substances and to provide information for those involved in the storage and use of substances including the emergency services. The revisions should be completed by next year. The importance of this, of course, is that they apply to small as well as large quantities and in circumstances where the new controls for major hazards do not apply.
While I very much regret the incidents that have occurred recently, I hope that hon. Members will be reassured that, while all eventualities can never be catered for, the Government are continuing to devise means to reduce the risks from hazardous substances. Real progress is being made in a number of ways.

Question put and agree to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past One o'clock.